The role and functions of higher education councils and commissions in Africa: A case study of the Kenya Commission for Higher Education

THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION COUNCILS AND COMMISSIONS IN AFRICA

A case study of the Kenya Commission for Higher Education

Tracy Bailey2014

Published by the Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET),House Vincent, First Floor, 10 Brodie Road, Wynberg Mews, Wynberg, 7800, South AfricaTelephone: +27(0)21 763 7100Fax: +27(0)21 763 7117Email: [email protected]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

2014 Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET)

Produced by COMPRESS.dsl | www.compressdsl.com

iii

ContentsAcronyms and abbreviations iv

1. Introduction 1 1.1 About the study 1 1.2 About this case study report 4

2. The governance of higher education in Kenya 6 2.1 The higher education landscape 6 2.2 The Kenya Commission for Higher Education (KCHE) 8

3. Functions of the KCHE 13 3.1 Accreditation and quality assurance 14 3.2 Planning for the establishment and development of higher education 17 3.3 Student admissions 18 3.4 Mobilisation of resources 19 3.5 Information and public relations for higher education 19 3.6 Advice 20 3.7 Roles in the governance of higher education in Kenya 21

4. Key issues 25 4.1 Inadequate financial and human resources 25 4.2 Autonomy and independence 26 4.3 Inadequate data 27

List of sources 29 Reports, articles and legislation 29 Interview respondents (September 2012) 30

Appendix: Emergence of the Commission for University Education (CUE) 31

iv the role and functions of higher education councils and commissions in africa

Acronyms and abbreviationsCHET Centre for Higher Education TransformationCUAC Central Universities Admissions CommitteeCUE Commission for University EducationDAAD German Academic Exchange ServiceHEI higher education institutionHELB Higher Education Loans BoardHEMIS higher education management information systemHERANA Higher Education Research and Advocacy Network in AfricaJAB Joint Admissions BoardKCHE Kenya Commission for Higher EducationMHEST Ministry of Higher Education, Science and TechnologyMoE Ministry of EducationNCST National Council on Science and TechnologyTE/HE tertiary education or higher educationTIVET technical, industrial and vocational education and trainingUGC Universities Grants Committee

a case study of the kenya commission for higher education 1

Introduction1.1 About the study

The key research programme of the Higher Education Research and Advocacy Network in Africa (HERANA) Phase 1 (2007–2011) focused on the link between higher education and development in Africa. The overall findings and analyses were published in, amongst others, eight country reports,1 a synthesis report, and a book entitled Universities and Economic Development in Africa which was launched in August 2011.2 HERANA Phase 2 (2011–2014) is further developing the analyses and findings of the first phase through a number of higher education projects.

One of the analytical propositions of the Universities and Economic Development in Africa project was that for higher education to make a sustainable contribution to development in a country, there has to be national-level coordination of knowledge policies and of the key actors in the system. The study found that tertiary or higher education (TE/HE) councils and commissions had been established in each of the eight countries. More often than not, these agencies were mandated to undertake a regulatory accreditation function and had, over time, assumed additional roles and functions. It became apparent to the research team that these organisations could be key players in national coordination and implementation monitoring.

The Higher Education Councils and Commissions in Africa project was initiated in late 2011. The main aim of this comparative study is to explore the role of the councils and commissions in the governance of tertiary education, in the same eight African countries, through their mandated functions. The following tertiary/higher education councils and commissions are included in the study:3

• The Botswana Tertiary Education Council (BTEC);4

• The Ghana National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE);• The Kenya Commission for Higher Education (KCHE);5

• The Mauritius Tertiary Education Commission (MTEC);• The Mozambique National Council for Quality Assurance (CNAQ);• The South African Council on Higher Education (CHE);• The Tanzania Commission for Universities (TCU); and• The Uganda National Council for Higher Education (NCHE).

1 The eight countries are: Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda.

2 Cloete et al. (2011). See the CHET website for further information on these outputs: http://www.chet.org.za/.

3 Some of the acronyms for the councils/commissions used in this report have been invented in order to distinguish between organisations with the same acronyms (e.g. ‘TEC’ refers to both the Botswana Tertiary Education Council and the Mauritius Tertiary Education Commission).

4 This agency was reconstituted as the Human Resources Development Council in 2013.

5 This agency was reconstituted as the Kenya Commission for University Education in 2013.

1

2 the role and functions of higher education councils and commissions in africa

The broader study set out to explore the following research questions:

• What functions are these councils and commissions mandated by law to undertake?• Why and how were these organisations established, and how are they structured and resourced?• How have their mandates, structure, capacity and operations evolved over time?• What factors have impacted on the capacity of these organisations to carry out their respective

mandates?• What role(s) do the councils and commissions fulfil in the governance of tertiary education in

their respective countries?

It was assumed that factors both internal and external to the organisation impact on its raison d’etre and the way it functions and operates. Internal factors include the way in which the organisation is structured and composed, its legal status and powers, and the resources available to it to carry out its mandate. External factors include funding sources and arrangements, shifts in the broader governance system, and interaction with other key stakeholders. A simple distinction between ‘function’ and ‘role’ is maintained in the study, where a function refers to activities an individual or organisation engages in, in order to carry out their role in a particular context.

There are also two sub-components to the broader project, each of which has their own report and informed the broader case studies:

• A comparative analysis of the legislation that gives rise to and mandates the councils/commissions in the study;6 and

• A comparative analysis of how the councils/commissions are financed, and how they carry out their funding functions (where applicable).7

This project has been undertaken by the following multi-disciplinary research team:

Project leader and researcher

• Tracy Bailey (CHET consultant, South Africa): Seven case study reports and synthesis report

Researchers • Danwood Chirwa (Head of Public Law, University of Cape Town, South Africa): Report on the legislative frameworks of councils/commissions and reviewing the legislative aspects of the draft case study reports

• Praveen Mohadeb (former Executive Director of the Mauritius Tertiary Education Commission): Report on the financing and funding of the councils/commissions

6 This sub-component includes seven of the eight countries; Mozambique was excluded because the legislation is in Portuguese. See Chirwa (2014).

7 See Mohadeb (2013).


• Patricio Langa (Faculty of Education, Eduardo Mondlane University, Mozambique): Mozambique case study report

Research assistants

• Monique Ritter (CHET consultant, South Africa): Sourcing key documents and for desk research, compiling background information for the interviews and comparative analysis tables

• Samuel Kiiru (Institute of Development Studies, University of Nairobi, Kenya): Compiling background information for the study

• Gillian Bailey (CHET consultant, South Africa): Interview transcriptions

Project advisors • °Ase Gornitzka (Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Norway)• Nico Cloete (Director of CHET, South Africa)

In each country, the team worked closely with a key contact/resource person. In Kenya, our contact was Samuel Kiiru (University of Nairobi), who assisted in providing background information, scheduling interviews, responding to queries, and attending work-in-progress seminars.

The case studies have been developed primarily via extensive desk research and interviews with key informants. Desk research included preparing background information to inform the site visits (including information about each country’s tertiary education system, the councils/commissions, and the relevant legislation and policies), as well as gleaning information from policy documents, annual reports and other relevant publications and websites as part of the development of the case study reports.

Site visits were undertaken by the project leader between March and October 2012, to conduct interviews with senior leadership and staff at each of the councils/commissions, and with at least one key individual in the parent ministries. In Kenya, interviews were conducted during September 2012 (see List of sources). These interviews were recorded and later transcribed.

The draft case study reports were developed during 2013 and were sent to the councils/commissions (chief executive officers and key resource people) for feedback and comment between October and December of that year.8 The case reports were finalised during March 2014. The synthesis and comparative analysis of the roles and functions of the eight councils/commissions in the study was published in 2014.9

8 Unfortunately, by February 2014, no feedback on the draft KCHE case study report had been received from the Commission and thus the report had to be finalised as is.

9 See Bailey (2014).


1.2 About this case study report

A few months after the interviews were conducted for the KCHE case study, the new Universities Act No. 42 of 2012 came into effect on 14 December 2012. The new Act replaced the Universities Act (Cap 210B) of 1985 and, in so doing, replaced the KCHE with the Kenya Commission for University Education (CUE). While these developments are described in brief in the appendix to this report, and referenced in other places, the focus of this case study report is on the KCHE.

This report draws together the documentary and interview data on the KCHE that was collected and analysed during 2012/2013. It aims to provide a detailed description of the creation of the organisation, how it is structured, what its primary functions are, the challenges it faces in carrying out these functions, as well as the broader (national) context within which it operates. The report also provides an analysis of the functions of the KCHE and what role(s) it plays in the governance of the higher education sector in Kenya.

Some of the discussion relating to the legislative aspects of the councils/commissions’ composition, operations and functions drew on overviews of the founding Acts of Parliament prepared by Danwood Chirwa as background for the site visits and interviews in 2012. These overviews remain unpublished but have been drawn upon in the case study reports, and are in some way incorporated into Chirwa’s (2014) comparative report.

It should be noted that case studies such as this one, which attempt to construct a relatively coherent picture and account of an organisation within its broader historical and political contexts, always run the risk of becoming evaluative, even when they do not intend to (and this one certainly does not), and of being selective, time-bound and incomplete. To the extent that there are evaluative aspects to this case study, these are made in relation to the mandates of the organisation as set out in the relevant Act, and in terms of its capacity to carry out these mandates, as reported by interview respondents and in official documents. It was beyond the scope of the study to seek external opinion on the success or otherwise of the organisation’s operations. Attempts to mitigate the limitations of the inevitably selective, time-bound and incomplete nature of the case study have included drawing on a variety of available key sources (people, documents and websites), and engaging council/commission representatives in checking the accuracy of and interpretations in their respective case study reports.

Finally, a note about the terms ‘tertiary education’ and ‘higher education’, which both appear in the names of the councils/commissions in the study and refer to their different spheres of operation. There is some vagueness and interchangeability around their use in the literature, in policy and other official documents, and on organisational websites (such as those of the councils/commissions or their parent ministries). Furthermore, what is included as either tertiary or higher varies across different countries and higher education systems in terms of qualification structures, institutional types and so on. For the purposes of this study, ‘tertiary education’ is taken to include two sub-sectors: further or vocational education and training, which is offered in a variety of public


and private institutions such as colleges, technical training institutes and distance learning centres; and higher education, which is usually offered at universities or polytechnics that offer undergraduate and/or postgraduate programmes, and engage in teaching, research and/or the professions. Country-specific definitions and distinctions are highlighted in the introductions to the case study reports.

The remainder of this report is organised into three parts:

• The first part provides a brief overview of the higher education governance landscape in Kenya, including the main bodies and their mandated functions, and the relevant legislation and policies in place. We then provide information – both legal and sociological – on the structure and composition of the KCHE itself.

• In the second part, we focus on the mandated functions of the KCHE – as they are outlined in the relevant legislation, and how they have been implemented, developed and changed over time. We also consider the roles that the KCHE plays in the governance of higher education in Kenya through a categorisation of its functions.

• The third part concludes the report by exploring some of the factors that were impacting on the KCHE’s ability to carry out its mandate at the time and highlighting the key issues emerging from the case study.


The governance of higher education in Kenya2.1 The higher education landscape

Tertiary education in Kenya comprises the higher education sector and aspects of the technical, industrial and vocational education and training (TIVET) sector. The TIVET institutions include polytechnics and various training colleges and institutes which offer programmes to diploma level. The higher education sector comprises public and private universities and university colleges. Table 1 below indicates the different higher education institutional types and their total number. Data on total student enrolments for each institutional type were not available at the time of writing this report. However, it was estimated that there were about 120,000 students in the system in 2013, half of which were enrolled at the University of Nairobi.10 According to the World Economic Forum’s latest available figures,11 the gross tertiary education enrolment rate in Kenya was 4% in 2009.12

Table 1: Number of higher education institutions in Kenya (2013)

Institutional types Total number Public Private

Universities 41 22 19*

University constituent colleges 14 9 5

TOTAL 55 31 24 Source: CUE Newsletter, March–June 2013, p.2* 17 chartered and two registered. An additional nine private universities had Interim Letters of Authority.

The main government body responsible for higher education in Kenya is the Ministry for Higher Education, Science and Technology (MHEST). The MHEST was established in 2008 in order ‘to harmonize, implement, guide and coordinate higher education, science and technology’ towards the national agenda of ‘knowledge-based economic development’.13 Within the MHEST, the Directorate of Higher Education, which was established in 2005, is mandated ‘to coordinate policy formulation and implementation of university education’ and to ‘oversee matters of university education for both public and private universities’.14 As such, the Directorate is tasked with a range of responsibilities including, amongst others, the formulation and review of higher education policies; the coordination of plans and budgets of public higher education institutions (HEIs); and

10 Personal communication, Samuel Kiiru (October 2013).

11 WEF (2012).

12 At the time of publication, the KCHE had not provided the author with a more recent figure.

13 MHEST website: http://www.scienceandtechnology.go.ke/index.php/about-us (accessed October 2013).

14 Interview (September 2012).

2


the disbursement of grants and bursaries to HEIs.15 The Directorate undertakes its responsibilities in collaboration with other key bodies such as the Kenya Commission for Higher Education (KCHE), the Higher Education Loans Board (HELB) and the Joint Admissions Board (JAB).

At the time of the interviews, these three other bodies were directly involved in the governance and implementation of higher education in Kenya. The KCHE was established as a body corporate by the Kenya Universities Act (Cap 210B) of 1985.16 It was mandated, among other things, ‘to ensure the maintenance of standards, quality and relevance in all aspects of university education, training and research’.17 The HELB was established by the Higher Education Loans Board Act (Cap 213A) of 1995. The Board is mandated to disburse loans, bursaries and scholarships to students in public and private universities, in public TIVET institutions, and in universities within the East African Community member states.18 The JAB manages undergraduate admissions to government-sponsored programmes in public universities.19 It is a formally-constituted grouping including the senates of public universities and their constituent colleges, as well as representatives from the MHEST, KCHE and the HELB, which meets once a year to consider the candidates for admission.20

Two other government agencies that have a bearing on higher education in Kenya are the National Biosafety Authority and the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI)21 which funds research in universities and other institutions. Finally, there is a committee for the vice-chancellors of public and private universities which meets to discuss issues concerning them with the Directorate of Higher Education.22

At the time of the study, there was no higher education policy in Kenya. However, in 2008, the Ministry of Education (then responsible for higher education) produced the National Strategy for the Development of University Education (2008–2015) as part of a reform process it began in 2003.23 The strategy provides detailed objectives, strategies and targets for the higher education sub-sector focussing on access and equity; quality and relevance; financing; students and staff; science, technology and innovation; information and communication technology; linkages and partnerships; and governance and management.

The KCHE’s strategic plan covered the period 2010–2015 and was developed in consultation with a

15 MHEST website: http://www.scienceandtechnology.go.ke/index.php/departments/directorate-of-higher-education/70-functions-of-the-directorate-of-higher-education (accessed October 2013).

16 Universities Act of 1985, sections 3(1) and 3(2).

17 KCHE (2010a: 1).

18 National Treasury (2012: 21).

19 JAB website: http://jab.uonbi.ac.ke/ (accessed October 2013).

20 JAB website: http://jab.uonbi.ac.ke/node/28 (accessed October 2013).

21 Which replaced the former National Council on Science and Technology (NCST).


23 MoE (2008).


range of stakeholders from government ministries, public and private HEIs, research institutions and industry.24 The plan is aligned to national development priorities as articulated in Kenya’s Vision 2030 and the Medium Term Plan (2008–2012).25 The strategic objectives of the plan relate to, amongst others, quality assurance, access, equity and research in HEIs, and to the management system, staff capacity, funding levels and partnerships of the KCHE itself.26

2.2 The Kenya Commission for Higher Education (KCHE)

Origins

According to an interview respondent, in the early 1980s, the University of Nairobi was still the only university in the country and the government established a commission to set up a second public university (Moi University).27 Also around that time, the education system was changing from the British A-level system (two years of A-levels followed by three years of university education) to the 8-4-4 system which is still in place today. According to this respondent, while the A-level system produced good quality education, it also produced significant wastage in the system; in particular, a small proportion of Form 4 students would continue to do their A-levels and an even smaller proportion would ultimately enrol in a university. The 8-4-4 system, on the other hand, ‘meant that after four years of high school, if you passed well, you would then proceed to university either in Kenya or elsewhere’.28

With an increased number of eligible students from secondary school, there was a growing demand for new universities to increase the number of places available. During the 1980s this saw the establishment of seven new public universities by the government, as well as the emergence of the first private universities.29 The growing diversity of public and private universities soon raised the issue of standards, particularly the standardisation of degree offerings across the institutions. In this regard, an interview respondent highlighted that there was a need for quality assurance but that the focus at the time was on quality assurance ‘expressed in terms of harmonisation’ or ‘uniformity’.30

The KCHE was thus established in 1985, ‘following the need to regulate, coordinate and assure quality in higher education as a result of growth and expansion of the university sub-sector in Kenya’.31

24 KCHE (2010a: v).

25 Ibid.: viii.

26 Ibid.: ix.





31 KCHE (2010a: 1).


Structure, composition and accountability

The KCHE comprises the Commission, a number of Commission committees, and a Secretariat which undertakes the day-to-day running of the organisation, as depicted in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Structure of the Kenya Commission for Higher Education (2013)

COMMISSIONBOARD

(21–25 members)

Knowledge Management

Institutional Funding

COMMISSION COMMITTEES(Universities Grants; Central

Universities Admissions; Appointments & Promotions;

Inspection; Curriculum; Technical; Legislation; Documentation & IT;

Equation of Qualifications; Post-Secondary School

Institutions; Policy Analysis & Research; Tenders)

SECRETARIAT(82 staff members)

Accreditation & Quality Assurance

Deputy Commission Secretary

Commission Secretary

Planning, Administration

& Finance

Deputy Commission Secretary

The Universities Act of 1985 provides for 21 to 25 members on the Commission32 with the following representation:33

a) A chairperson and vice-chairperson appointed by the President;b) Not more than fifteen and not less than eleven members appointed by the President by virtue

of their experience in university education and research;c) The Permanent Secretary to the Ministry for the time being responsible for university education;d) The Permanent Secretary to the Ministry for the time being responsible for finance;e) Four persons appointed by the Minister to represent other areas of university education;f) The Chief Secretary;g) The Director of Personnel Management; andh) Such other person, not more than three in number, as the Commission may co-opt.

32 Universities Act of 1985, section 4.

33 Ibid.: section 4(1).


According to an interview respondent, the ex-officio members ‘represent the government’s interests in the board’ and are drawn from key government agencies; in particular, the ministries in charge of public service and of higher education, the office of the President, the office of the Cabinet, and the inspector of public corporations.34 The Minister selects and appoints Commissioners while the President appoints the Chairperson.35 Other than ex-officio members, members of the Commission hold office for a period of five years and are eligible for re-appointment.36

An interview respondent described the Commission board as ‘representative of specific sectors’ including public and private universities and other stakeholders.37 Strictly speaking, the KCHE is not a technical body because the Act does not require members of the Commission to possess a prerequisite qualification which makes them eligible for appointment.

The Universities Act of 1985 provides for the KCHE to establish two committees, namely the Universities Grants Committee (UGC) and the Central Universities Admissions Committee (CUAC).38 According to the KCHE website, the UGC liaises with government departments as well as the public and private sectors regarding ‘overall national manpower development requirements’.39 The CUAC is mandated to advise the Commission on ‘the coordination of admissions to public universities on a national basis’; ‘the establishment and maintenance … of equivalent educational standards as a prerequisite for university admission’; and the minimum requirements for admission.40

At the time of the interviews, both the UGC and CUAC were operational, as were a number of other committees including the Commission Steering Committee and committees for appointments and promotions, inspection, curriculum, technical, legislation, documentation and information technology, equation of qualifications, post-secondary school institutions, policy analysis and research, and tenders.41 According to the KCHE’s last strategic plan, the Committees ‘examine and determine specific issues and advise the Commission on the actions to be taken’ and ‘engage the services of resource persons where necessary’.42

The KCHE Secretariat is headed by a Commission Secretary who is appointed by the Minister.43 An interview respondent described the process of appointing a new Commission Secretary which the KCHE was involved in at the time: ‘An advertisement was done, people applied, they were shortlisted



36 Universities Act of 1985, section 4(2).



39 KCHE website: www.che.or.ke/ (accessed September 2012).



42 KCHE (2010a: 8).



and interviewed by the Commission, and [according to procedure] three names were sent to the Minister. So the Minister does a background check on the ability to perform the function and he chooses from the three who they think can do the job.’44 The Commission Secretary is the chief executive of the KCHE and has the responsibility of managing the daily activities of the organisation. The Secretary is also an ex-officio member of the Commission board. Other Secretariat staff are appointed by the Minister after consulting with the KCHE.45

At the time of the interviews, there were two main divisions in the Secretariat, each headed by a Deputy Commission Secretary, namely Planning, Administration and Finance (with departments for planning, human resources and finance), and Quality Assurance and Accreditation (with departments for documentation, curriculum, inspection, and post-secondary school institutions). There were 82 staff members in the Secretariat at the time.46

In terms of accountability, the Universities Act of 1985 suggests that the KCHE is accountable only for the manner in which it spends public funds and not for the way it discharges its primary functions. The financial accountability of the KCHE is primarily via the Controller and Auditor General who audits the accounts of the KCHE annually and in turn submits a report thereon to the Minister, who in turn lays it before Parliament.47 An interview respondent described the various forms of accountability as follows:

There is an institutional arrangement for everything. The Commission reports to the Minister in charge of higher education. For financial arrangements we have the National Audit Office which does the audit, and we do our annual reports on financial matters to the national audit office who prepares a final report for parliament on financial matters. But on a day-to-day basis, the Board reports to the Minister ... The Secretariat reports to the Board through the CEO.48

Funding and physical infrastructure

The KCHE received 89% of its funding from government and the remaining 11% from fees charged for services rendered (institutional registration and accreditation, programme accreditation, quality audits, grant of award powers, the recognition and equivalence of qualifications, and annual contributions from HEIs).49 The KCHE also received grants from UNESCO, DAAD and the Rockefeller Foundation for education and research development including, for instance, funding for quality




47 Universities Act of 1985, sections 19 and 20.


49 Mohadeb (2013: 7).


assurance-related stakeholder meetings and projects (e.g. recognition and equivalence of university status), and for the development and publishing of quality assurance and accreditation guidelines.50

The Act does not specifically state how the KCHE is to be funded. However the KCHE is required to submit an estimate of its expenditure and income to the Minister for approval.51 Expenditure includes the cost of administering the KCHE, the cost of salaries, allowances, pensions, gratuities and other charges payable to staff and members of the KCHE.52

Finally, in terms of physical infrastructure, according to an interview respondent, when the KCHE was first established it rented office space in the office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nairobi at the time.53 The small Secretariat grew and, in 1989, they moved to rented premises in Development House in the city centre. In December 2006, the KCHE moved once again – this time to their current premises in Gigiri in greater Nairobi. The Commission owns both the land (about 12 acres) and the building – which, at the time of the interviews, had quite a bit of spare capacity, some of which was being rented out.

50 Mohadeb (2013: 7) and interviews (September 2012).

51 Universities Act of 1985, sections 18(1) and (2).




Functions of the KCHEThe Universities Act mandates the Commission to undertake the following functions:54

1. To promote the objectives of university education, namely the development, processing, storage and dissemination of knowledge for the benefit of mankind;

2. To advise the Minister on the establishment of public universities;3. To accredit universities;4. To coordinate the long-term planning, staff development, scholarship and physical

development of university education;5. To promote national unity and identity in universities;6. To liaise with government departments and the public and private sectors of the economy in

matters relating to overall national manpower development and requirements;7. To co-operate with the government in the planned development of university education;8. To examine and approve proposals for courses of study and course regulations submitted to

it by private universities;9. To receive and consider applications from persons seeking ‘to establish private universities

in Kenya and make recommendations thereon to the Minister;10. To make regulations in respect of admission of persons seeking to enrol in universities and to

provide a central admissions service to public universities;11. To ensure the maintenance of standards for courses of study and examinations in the

universities;12. To advise and make recommendations to the government on matters relating to university

education and research requiring the consideration of the government;13. To collect, examine and publish information relating to university education and research;14. To plan and provide for the financial needs of university education and research, including the

recurrent and non-recurrent needs of universities;15. To determine and recommend to the Minister the allocation of grants of money for appropriation

by Parliament to meet the needs of university education and research and review expenditure by universities of moneys appropriated by Parliament;

16. To advise the government on the standardization, recognition and equation of degrees, diplomas and certificates conferred or awarded by foreign and private universities;

17. To coordinate education and training courses offered in post-secondary school institutions for the purposes of higher education and university admission;

18. To arrange for regular visitations and inspections of private universities; and19. To perform and exercise all other functions and powers conferred on it by this Act.


3


In its official documentation, the KCHE categorises these functions as follows:55

1. Planning for the establishment and development of higher education and training;2. Mobilisation of resources for higher education and training;3. Accreditation and regular re-inspection (audit) of universities;4. Coordination and regulation of admission to universities; and 5. Documentation, information services and public relations for higher education and training.

For the purposes of this discussion, the core functions of the KCHE are grouped as follows: accreditation and quality assurance; planning for the establishment and development of higher education; student admissions; mobilisation of resources; documentation, information and public relations for higher education; and advice.

3.1 Accreditation and quality assurance

The Universities Act of 1985 mandates the KCHE to ‘advise the Minister on the establishment of public universities’;56 to ‘receive and consider applications from persons seeking to establish private universities in Kenya and make recommendations thereon to the Minister’;57 to ‘accredit universities’;58 to ‘examine and approve proposals for courses of study and course regulations submitted to it by private universities’;59 and to ensure ‘the maintenance of standards for courses of study and examinations in the universities’.60 The Act also mandates the KCHE with the task of coordinating the ‘education and training courses offered in post-secondary school institutions for the purposes of higher education and university admission.’61

As highlighted in section 2.2 of this report, the KCHE was initially established in response to the need for regulation, coordination and quality assurance of the growing public and private university sector, and that quality assurance at that point was expressed in terms of the ‘harmonisation’ or ‘uniformity’ of degree offerings. As such, the first task of the newly-established Commission was to deal with the issue of the standardisation of degree programmes that were being offered and, in 1989, developed and gazetted The Universities (Establishment of Universities, Standardization, Accreditation and Supervision) Rules 1989. This was followed by The Universities (Coordination of Post-Secondary School Institutions for University Education) Rules 2004.62 Over time, the KCHE developed a range of other standards and guidelines relating to its accreditation and quality

55 KCHE (2010b: 3); KCHE (2008: 2); KCHE website: www.che.or.ke/ (accessed September 2012).

56 Universities Act of 1985, section 6(b).

57 Ibid.: section 6(i).

58 Ibid.: section 6(c).

59 Ibid.: section 6(h).

60 Ibid.: section 6(k).

61 Ibid.: section 6(q).

62 KCHE (2008: 11).


assurance functions,63 all of which were published in the Commissions’ 2008 Handbook on Processes for Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Kenya.64

The Handbook indicates that the KCHE’s definition of quality in higher education had expanded from the narrow standards-based definition to include ‘fitness for purpose’.65 The processes involved in assuring quality in higher education include the following:66

• The establishment of quality assurance structures and mechanisms within HEIs which monitor internal ‘compliance with the set standards and procedures’ (quality control);

• Quality assessments of ‘the processes, practices, programmes and services’ within HEIs by external peers; and

• Quality audits or ‘re-inspections’ undertaken by an external organisation to ensure ‘institutional compliance with quality assurance procedures and standards’.

The KCHE is thus responsible for all matters relating to the establishment and accreditation of private universities, as well as the accreditation of their academic programmes. According to the Handbook, both institutional and programme accreditation are ongoing processes involving a number of stages and which incorporate the following key features:67

• The use of a peer review/consultative process in the relevant subjects or discipline;• Self-assessment/evaluation by institutions based on their vision, mission, philosophy and

objectives;• Site visits/inspections to verify available resources; and• A developmental approach ‘where the Commission works with the institution to reach the

desired standards’.

In practice, anyone seeking to establish a new private university in Kenya must apply to the KCHE. The KCHE processes the application to check whether it meets the basic standards. If not, the applicant will be advised on how to improve the application. Once the application has been accepted, the KCHE undertakes a series of inspections ‘to determine the appropriateness of the institution to offer the proposed academic programmes’.68 If the KCHE is satisfied that the institution has the necessary capacity to offer university-level education, it grants the applicant a Letter of Interim Authority. The KCHE then guides the institution to attain full accreditation status within a period of four years.

63 These include standards and guidelines relating to, amongst others, the establishment and registration of universities; institutional rules and regulations regarding staff and student conduct and discipline; facilities; curriculum development and open and distance learning; authority to collaborate; and equation of qualifications.

64 KCHE (2008).

65 Ibid.: v.

66 Ibid.

67 Ibid.: 14).

68 KCHE (2010b: 4).


As part of its quality assurance work, the KCHE (with the Inter-University Council for East Africa and other regulatory bodies in the region) facilitated a series of training workshops for deans, chairs and quality assurance officers from universities within the East African region.69 The KCHE was also involved in a regional project on developing a credit accumulation and transfer system for the East African region with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation.70 The Commission also organises workshops for HEIs, such as the workshop on enhancement of programme accreditation which was run for the vice-chancellors of private universities in March 2011.71

Since its establishment, the KCHE has paid much closer attention to the private universities in terms of quality assurance because that was its original mandate, but also, according to an interview respondent, because it was assumed that the public universities would take responsibility for their own quality assurance.72 This is one of the changes brought about by the new Universities Act of 2012 (which establishes the CUE), namely that public universities are now also subject to the accreditation and quality assurance procedures of the KCHE, as highlighted in the last KCHE strategic plan: ‘To date the work of the Commission has centred on private Universities. The expected enactment of the Universities Bill will extend the quality assurance mandate of the Commission to the Public Universities. These will ensure fairness and enhance quality assurance in all universities.’73

MHEST interview respondents reported that with regard to accreditation, the KCHE makes recommendations to the Minister, who makes the final decisions taking the KCHE’s recommendations into account. The quotations below from two of these respondents further describe the relationship and division of labour between the KCHE and the Ministry:74

The Commission has been given the mandate for accreditation. Of course they would go out there, inspect the institution, give recommendations as per the conditions – given that for you to be ready to offer this programme you should have the following equipment, or you need to look at the following areas, maybe the qualifications of staff, laboratories, library, the general infrastructure and amenities within the institution. Then that report would be compiled. The senior management in KCHE would then look at that recommendation and also give their own recommendations. Whatever has been observed outside, they give their own recommendations and forward it to the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology, who would then give the final decision.

Of course [the KCHE] has been given that mandate, they have been given those powers, but they are working for the MHEST, so the Ministry has to honour whatever recommendation

69 KCHE brochure: General Information 2011–2012.

70 Ibid.

71 CHE News: A newsletter of the Commission for Higher Education, March 2011–June 2011, p.13.


73 KCHE (2010a: 1).

74 Interviews (September 2012).


they have made ... because those are the technocrats. Whatever they say, we look at it critically and say: ok, fine. Of course, where it needs funding, that’s where the accounting officer has to consent. But when it comes to saying: now, ok, this institution is up for accreditation; this programme can now be running in that university – I think we have to give them that honour and respect.

3.2 Planning for the establishment and development of higher education

The Universities Act of 1985 mandates the KCHE with various planning-related functions; for instance, ‘to coordinate the long-term planning, staff development, scholarship and physical development of university education’;75 ‘to liaise with Government departments and the public and private sectors of the economy in matters relating to overall national manpower development and requirements’;76 and ‘to cooperate with the Government in the planned development of university education’.77

The planning department has been in existence since the establishment of the KCHE. Interview respondents described the department’s planning work as encompassing long-term student enrolment planning in relation to the continued expansion of the sector (working collaboratively with the Accreditation and Quality Assurance Division), as well as the development of the Commission’s strategic plans and the monitoring of the implementation of the plans.78 The current strategic plan was outsourced to an external consultant who gathered input from within the KCHE and also from other stakeholders via a stakeholders’ forum which included the universities and various government agencies, amongst others.79 The KCHE had also participated in the development of the MHEST strategic plan, and they were working with the MHEST on developing the second medium-term plan for higher education as part of the government’s Vision 2030: ‘We are involved with the stakeholders in the sector, to give our input and targets for the various activities which are required in the next five years, from 2013 to 2017.’80

At the time of the interviews, respondents reported two projects that were to be undertaken in order to generate data to inform enrolment planning, namely, a graduate tracer study and a university needs assessment – which one respondent described as ‘a nationwide study to find out the numbers of the universities and where they need to be in the next five years ... it informs us where there is a deficit and where there is a need for expansion’ and therefore the enrolments that will be required.81 (According to respondents, these projects had been delayed for some time owing to a lack of

75 Universities Act of 1985, section 6(d).

76 Ibid.: section 6(f).

77 Ibid.: section 6(g).






funding.) The information derived from these sources will be used by government to inform funding for public universities and to identify priority fields of study. As one respondent explained, this will enable government to link funding to admission in particular fields:

Once we obtain the information it helps with the planning. It guides the areas where the investments are required ... in different parts of the country, in different areas or let’s say specialties that are required, because from the tracer studies we are also be able to find out the courses which industry requires, and if that links with what we are funding, and if there are gaps, we try to bridge. So it is both ways – guiding in terms of the courses and the areas where the investment is required.82

However, according to an interview respondent, the planning function of the KCHE was not yet fully implemented:

It is one [function] that now has to be expanded. It has always been what we call PAF – planning, administration and finance. Administration and finance is a service to the Commission, but planning is supposed to collect data for purposes of enabling the Commission to advise government on planning, but it has not been very well-equipped to play that role.83

3.3 Student admissions

The Universities Act of 1985 mandates the KCHE ‘to make regulations in respect of admission of persons seeking to enrol in universities and to provide a central admissions service to public universities’.84 And, as highlighted in section 2.2 of this report, the Central Universities Admissions Committee (CUAC) was established to advise the Commission on the minimum requirements for admission and the coordination of admissions to public universities.

However, as highlighted by the University Strategy, the KCHE was not able to implement the coordination of student admissions function, primarily because of the lack of capacity in the organisation ‘to carry out the task’ as well as the ‘resistance of the universities’ senates to relinquish their mandate of admission of students to respective degree courses’.85 This led to the establishment of the Joint Admissions Board which currently manages the central admissions system.



84 Universities Act of 1985, section 6(j).

85 MoE (2008: 28).


3.4 Mobilisation of resources

The Universities Act of 1985 specifically mentions two financing-related functions for the KCHE: ‘to plan and provide for the financial needs of university education and research, including the recurrent and non-recurrent needs of universities’,86 and ‘to determine and recommend to the Minister the allocation of grants of money for appropriation by Parliament to meet the needs of university education and research and review expenditure by universities of moneys [sic] appropriated by Parliament’.87

With regard to the first of these finance-related functions, the Commission administered a special fund for research in universities provided by the MHEST.88 The KCHE website described the organisation’s role in this as follows:

Research grants are awarded competitively following a rigorous evaluation process. The Commission has established a data bank of resource persons with impeccable credentials and wide research experiences for the process. The experts are sourced from the universities, research institutions and relevant Ministries. The Policy Analysis and Research Committee of the Commission for Higher Education meets and approves the awards based on the recommendations of the resource persons.89

A respondent also reported that the KCHE plays a role, albeit a minimal one, in the awarding of scholarships (from government or other sources) by checking whether the institution is accredited or not, before the funds can be transferred.90

However, at the time of the interviews, these functions had only been partially implemented. One interview respondent remarked: ‘We have the University Grants Committee but it doesn’t receive any money.’91

3.5 Information and public relations for higher education

The Universities Act of 1985 mandates the KCHE ‘to promote the objectives of university education, namely the development, processing, storage and dissemination of knowledge for the benefit of mankind’92 and ‘to collect, examine and publish information relating to university education and

86 Universities Act of 1985, section 6(n).

87 Ibid.: section 6(o).

88 KCHE brochure: General Information 2011-2012.

89 KCHE website: http://www.cue.or.ke/services/planning-and-research (accessed October 2013).



92 Universities Act of 1985, section 6(a).


research’.93 To this end, the Commission manages a resource centre with a wide collection of (printed and electronic) books, journals and other documentation relating to higher education matters such as quality assurance, access, and the expansion and financing higher education.94 The resource centre is open to researchers in higher education and to the broader public.95

The Commission also facilitates engagement between higher education stakeholders. A key activity in this regard is the organisation of annual exhibitions in which (recognised) Kenyan universities can showcase and market their academic programmes to the public.96 The exhibitions also aim to demonstrate to both the public and industry the role played by universities in the socio-economic development of the country, and to foster university-industry partnerships.97 The first annual exhibition was hosted in 2002 and, over the years, exhibitions have been held in Nairobi and in centres in other parts of the country (e.g. Kisumu, Mombasa, Nakuru and Nyeri). Detailed information about the participating institutions is published following the event.

Linked to the exhibitions, the KCHE also organises (and reports on) stakeholder seminars during which participants are engaged in discussion around important higher education matters including, for example, issues relating to quality and relevance, financing, increasing access, and the challenges facing universities and industry in a knowledge economy.98

3.6 Advice

Finally, although not a core function of the organisation, or one with its own department or unit, the KCHE is mandated by the Act to advise and make recommendations in relation to ‘matters relating to university education and research requiring the consideration of the Government’99 and to ‘the standardization, recognition and equation of degrees, diplomas and certificates conferred or awarded by foreign and private universities’.100

93 Ibid.: section 6(m).

94 KCHE website: http://www.che.or.ke/services/information-services (accessed September 2012).

95 KCHE (2010b: 9).

96 Ibid.: 10; KCHE website: http://www.che.or.ke/services/annual-university-exhibition (accessed September 2012).

97 KCHE brochure: General Information 2011–2012; KCHE website: http://www.che.or.ke/services/annual-university-exhibition (accessed September 2012).

98 KCHE (2010b: 10); KCHE website: http://www.che.or.ke/services/annual-university-exhibition (accessed September 2012).

99 Universities Act of 1985, section 6(l).

100 Ibid.: section 6(p).


A Ministry respondent reported that with regard to policy formulation, while it is the Ministry that ‘spearheads’ the policy initiative, the actual policy formulation work is handed over to the KCHE (the ‘technocrats’), who undertake this work in consultation with the Ministry, the Directorate of Higher Education and the universities:

Indeed, the Directorate cannot work in isolation. In most of the cases, we worked together with the Commission for Higher Education. Any time there is an issue, a policy to be developed – as the Directorate, we will spearhead it, but the technocrats who are given that responsibility is actually the [KCHE]. And they cannot do it in isolation ... So the policy will come out [after] the involvement of all these – the Ministry, the Directorate, the [KCHE] and the university stakeholders in general.101

The KCHE also brings to bear information they have gathered via their accreditation and quality assurance activities, in response to requests from the Minister for ‘technical advice’102 or assistance. An interview respondent said that the KCHE is respected and consulted by the MHEST: ‘They consult for our input before major policy issues are made. They have to get our opinion and they take this into account.’103

3.7 Roles in the governance of higher education in Kenya

For the purposes of the study, the governance of tertiary or higher education is taken to require the fulfilment, by one or a number of government and non-governmental bodies, of five primary roles, namely: regulatory, distributive, monitoring, advisory and coordination roles.104 Regulatory, distributive and monitoring roles in higher education governance can be seen as part of the overall mechanisms for government steering of the sector. The kinds of functions that are associated with fulfilling each of these roles are highlighted in Table 2 on the next page.




104 It should be noted that the conceptual framework used for this analysis is preliminary and has been developed largely on the basis of themes and information that have emerged during the study. The framework will be further elaborated and refined in subsequent outputs of this project.


Table 2: Functions associated with different tertiary or higher education system ‘governance roles’

Regulatory • Determining norms and standards for the sector, the equivalence of qualifications between institutions, and credit accumulation and transfer policies and procedures

• Determining the policies and procedures for institutional and programme accreditation• Registering, licensing and/or accrediting new (and in some cases existing) public and/

or private TE/HE institutions• Accrediting new and/or existing academic programmes of public and/or private

institutions

Distributive • Determining budget allocations for TE/HE institutions and/or the sector as a whole• Distributing financial resources from the state to institutions, units or individuals in the

sector• Monitoring expenditure at both institutional and sector levels

Monitoring • Collecting and analysing system and institutional-level data, including the development of performance indicators

• Tracking developments and trends in the system, as well as performance and quality of institutions, against the norms and standards set for the sector or against stated national goals or system targets

• Publishing and disseminating TE/HE statistics, performance indicators, reviews, annual reports etc, and organising conferences with key stakeholders on the TE/HE system

• Communicating identified problem areas to the minister or institutions, where relevant

Advisory • Providing expert and evidence-/research-based advice to policy-makers and other TE/HE leadership in government and institutions, either proactively or reactively in response to specific requests

• Commenting on or formulating draft policies on behalf of the ministry responsible for TE/HE

• Providing advice (in some cases as ‘recommendations’) to the relevant government body on the licensing and accreditation of TE/HE institutions and the accreditation of their academic programmes

Coordination • Enabling interaction between key stakeholders and policy spheres• Promoting the objectives of TE/HE institutions or the sector to the market and within

government itself• Developing and maintaining agreement (a pact) between stakeholders about central

TE/HE objectives and issues• Strategic and financial planning for TE/HE institutions and the sector• Managing the relationships between key stakeholders (especially government and TE/

HE institutions)• Developing data and knowledge flows between different system-level governance roles• An oversight function ensuring no duplication, confusion or gaps with regard to who is

doing what in the overall governance system

As highlighted in section 2.2 of this report, the KCHE was established in response to a need to regulate, coordinate and assure the quality of the growing university sub-sector in the 1980s. In its regulatory role, the KCHE was responsible for developing the necessary standards and guidelines for the accreditation of private universities and their academic programmes; undertaking the necessary assessments and site inspections (with the assistance of external peer reviewers); and making recommendations to the Minister in this regard. The KCHE was also responsible for advising the Minister on the establishment of public universities. According to an interview respondent, the Commission could sanction institutions if they did not follow the rules and regulations regarding institutional and programme accreditation: ‘We can withdraw the programme; we can deregister the


organisation or the institution completely; we can stop them from graduating a student cohort which is not properly prepared for graduation, if that comes to our attention.’105 However, to a large extent, the KCHE took a ‘developmental’ rather than a ‘policing’ approach to its regulatory work, working alongside institutions to assist them in reaching the required standards, as the following respondent observed:

I think you should see the Commission as being established to guide and help. It’s not there to punish. So if you make a mistake or there is something you haven’t fulfilled, they will guide you on what needs to be fulfilled. Then they will come back and check if you have fulfilled it and then they will move the process forward. ... They can also, on the policing side, actually close a university that has not been responding to their recommendations; they have the power to do that, but they work together with the Ministry, the government and the universities.106

The KCHE also played a coordination role in the system in two ways. The first of these was planning – primarily focused on long-term student enrolment planning for the coordinated expansion of the sub-sector. In this regard, at the time of the interviews, the KCHE was in the process of launching graduate tracer study and university needs assessment projects which would inform this enrolment planning, as well as where government needed to invest funds. However, a shortage of staff in the planning department and the absence of a central higher education management information system (HEMIS) database or the systematic collection and analysis of data, were hampering the implementation of this role. The KCHE was also involved in assisting the MHEST with the development of their strategic plan. The second aspect of the coordination role was promoting higher education and the objectives of higher education via the storage and dissemination of higher education-related information (resource centre); hosting annual exhibitions (bringing together universities, industry and the public); and facilitating stakeholder seminars for the discussion of higher education-related matters.

The KCHE also played advisory and distributive roles, although in a limited sense. The KCHE’s advisory role involved responding to requests for advice or technical assistance from the Ministry with regard to policy formulation (including consultation with key stakeholders), as well as bringing issues arising from the agency’s quality assurance work to the attention of the Minister. However, both Ministry and KCHE interview respondents highlighted that the input from the KCHE was only one of a number of sources of information and advice in the policy process considered by the Minister, as described by the following respondent:

It’s not only the Commission for Higher Education that is an agency. We also have others like the Higher Education Loans Board which has a mandate, and all these. As much as the Commission [provides technical advice], the Directorate [for Higher Education in the MHEST]




has to make sure that all that policy is in tandem with what the others do because the Commission for Higher Education may come up with something that negates what another agency is doing. So the Minister has to make sure that the policy that is developed is in line with the mandates of the different agencies charged with the mandate of higher education.107

In the views of one interview respondent, while the KCHE’s advice function is mandated in the Act, the government ultimately does what it wants regardless of the advice of the committees: ‘That advisory function has not worked very well. It’s the nature of government; how it works.’108 Another respondent argued that the ‘advice’ given by the KCHE to the Minister regarding the establishment of new universities ultimately amounts to support for existing government plans for the development of higher education in the country. The example this respondent gave was that the KCHE received letters from the Ministry informing them of the decision to establish a number of new universities, and requesting that the KCHE visit the proposed institutions and undertake an evaluation of what would be required for their establishment:

So we would organise and go and study the place and give the report and the financial requirements. To that extent we were involved, but we didn’t really originate the idea; it was a government plan. But I don’t know whether that can really change; I think it will still have to be a joint participation because, in the end, when you establish a university, you require a lot of money, and the money is with the government. If we had our own money, we would now want to shift universities from Dar es Salaam to other places, but it has to be within government policy. So our role, I would say, is supportive, to ensure quality in whatever the government wants to do in higher education.109

Finally, the KCHE played a limited distributive role in managing the MHEST research fund for universities and assisting in verifying the accreditation status of universities which were offered scholarships from government or other external sources.





Key issuesBy way of concluding this case study report, we now consider the issues that were explored and/or emerged relating to the KCHE’s ability to carry out its mandate. These included financial and human resources, autonomy and independence, and inadequate data.110

4.1 Inadequate financial and human resources

Interview respondents highlighted various functions or projects that had not been fully implemented owing either to a lack of funds or to a shortage of staff. For instance, respondents attributed the limited implementation of the planning function to a shortage of staff – there were only five people in the department at the time of the interviews. Furthermore, the planning department was mandated to undertake research as well but owing to the limited research capacity, much of this was outsourced. As one respondent remarked: ‘The Commission activities are many and the budget is limited, so we have to prioritise and see which tasks are more of a priority.’111

KCHE staff were anticipating that the proposed restructuring in the Universities Act of 2012 would address these shortages by creating a department and posts for research, for example. At the same time, however, the expanded mandate of the CUE to include public as well as private HEIs for accreditation and quality assurance would vastly increase the organisation’s workload:

The mandate has been expanded from just private universities to both private and public universities. The magnitude of the public universities is just enormous; they are so big. In fact if we put all the private universities together (there are 42 of them) they don’t match the University of Nairobi. So we are bringing in an additional 11 public universities with about 23 constituent colleges, with satellite campuses all over the republic. Looking at the new constitution, every devolved government is looking to have a university, so we are most likely talking about having 47 public universities. So the mandate has ballooned, and other functions that were not here before have also been brought in – like standardization and quality control and the quality audit for all universities.112

An interview respondent reported that they were working on a recruitment plan to meet the human resource needs of the new organisation – more than doubling the staff complement as well as making provision for hiring consultants.113

110 This section of the case study reports usually relies quite heavily on interview data. However, as highlighted in the introduction to this report, at the time of the researchers’ visit to the KCHE, most of the organisational leadership were not available to be interviewed.




4


Finally, respondents raised the issue that the KCHE was, at the time, almost entirely dependent on government for funding and that they were considering other ways of generating income, for example, by charging fees for their services:

That’s the direction we need to take. The proposals that are being thought about are that the users, the people who enjoy the services of the Commission, should pay for it; either the universities pay for it or the students pay for it. The debate is still going on. For the Commission to be self-sustaining, for how long will it depend on the Exchequer?114

4.2 Autonomy and independence

One interview respondent spoke about the importance of the KCHE’s autonomy in fulfilling its functions – particularly its quality assurance and accreditation work: ‘I think autonomy is useful because if we lose it, then we lose our mandate.’115 He reported that, over the years, there had been attempts at political interference relating to, for example, the establishment of new universities, but that both the KCHE and the government stuck to the rules and followed procedure.

Having said that, this respondent reported that dependence on government for funding had limited the KCHE’s independence in certain respects; for instance, with regard to the approach and scope of their quality assurance activities, saying they would have done some things differently from government if they had their own additional sources of funds. He gave as an example the DAAD and Rockefeller Foundation funding which enabled the KCHE to deepen their work with the quality assurance units in universities:

We have a bit of autonomy in defining quality and I think we’ve tried to do that – we have not been interfered with. But that autonomy is not absolute because we are dependent on government for funding. So when you provide a budget, you say what you are going to do and they make sure that you stick by it. But if we had separate funding, if we generated our own funds, then there would be things that we would do that would be different from government.

... We established a quality assurance unit in every university (public and private) and defined the role of that unit. Every year it produces a report which it gives to the vice-chancellor, and the vice-chancellor tables the report in senate. If there are issues that need action, then the action can be taken. Now to get to that level was very difficult to do through government funding and so we had to get external help. We got help from DAAD and the Rockefeller Foundation. They brought in money to enable us to meet and discuss. They also gave us consultants for benchmarking purposes. I do recall at one time we wanted to have a workshop and we wanted to do it jointly with the government. [The government] agreed




and we did the workshop but that money was never transferred. Because the process started on an East African basis and was quite successful, the government now began to fund us recognising that activity. But in the initial stages, it didn’t quite make sense to them – and they will only allow you to do what makes sense to them.116

The Universities Act of 1985 is silent on the sources of funding of the KCHE. However, the KCHE is required to submit to the Minister for approval an estimate of its expenditure and income.117 The expenditure of the CHE include the cost of administering the KCHE, and the cost of salaries, allowances, pensions, gratuities and other charges payable to staff and members of the KCHE.118 These, together with other provisions concerning the accounts and audit of the KCHE,119 suggest that the KCHE is wholly funded by the government via the Minister, who approves the KCHE’s budgetary proposal. These provisions demonstrate that the Minister has complete control over the budget of the KCHE, which has implications for the independence of the KCHE.

Finally, as can be seen from section 2.2 of this report, the appointment of members of the CHE is dominated by the executive. Not only does the President have the power to appoint the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the KCHE, s/he is also responsible for appointing between 11 and 15 members of the Commission. The Minister appoints four additional members while the Commission may co-opt only up to three members. Furthermore, the KCHE does not have power to hire its staff; that power resides in the Minister.120 Thus, the Commission Secretary is appointed by the Minister without any obligatory consultation with the KCHE. These provisions might also have implications for the autonomy and independence of the Commission in carrying out its functions.

4.3 Inadequate data

Finally, at the time of the study, there was no single HEMIS in Kenya. Instead, data was collected via separate systems in the Ministry and the universities. According to an interview respondent, this presented the KCHE’s planning department with a challenge in collecting data from HEIs, but that the strategic plan of the MHEST indicated that they intended to work on the development of an integrated system:

There are several management systems which are run by different universities and the Ministry, and they are not quite integrated. That is where we also have difficulty in terms of collecting the data because we have to contact the individual universities to give us the particular data every year, and we keep having gaps. ... the government has promised to work on an integrated system which combines all these training institutions in higher


117 Universities Act of 1985, section 18(1)–(2).


119 Ibid.: sections 19–20.



education (even at the lower level) and they will be able to input their data directly so we are able to share it.121

This was echoed by Ministry respondents who reported that the Directorate (together with the KCHE) had undertaken a survey of all public and private universities in July 2012 to start collecting the data that would be needed for the establishment of a HEMIS.122 The survey collected data on, amongst others, student enrolments and enrolment trends by field of study and gender; number and profile of staff across different courses; staff-student ratios; and the facilities available in relation to courses offered. The database would be used by the Ministry to inform planning for the labour market as well as funding allocations to HEIs. This was described by an interview respondent as follows:

The purpose of that survey was for planning: we need to know the programmes that are being offered at the universities, at what level and their enrolment, for government funding. At the same time, we need to know, for example, how many engineers we will be producing in the next 25 years to come. How many shall have graduated? How many have retired? What is the gap? How many medical doctors will we be having at that time vis-à-vis the population we have? ... I believe the report is going to assist not only the MHEST, but also the Ministry of Planning and the Ministry of Finance. So [the report] is expected by quite a number of stakeholders.123

The University Strategy also makes mention of the need for a centralised data system:

Effective planning for university education requires a centralised university data system on all aspects of higher education. Lack of a centralized universities data system hinders access to reliable statistics on outreach programmes to the underprivileged; prevents implementation of mechanisms to mentor, monitor and follow up students from disadvantaged communities to ensure retention. In order to achieve the strategy of 10% GER there is an urgent need to establish a centralized and well-managed information and database system that keeps track of enrolment, retention, completion and/or attrition rates of students within universities. Each university should be required to submit student data annually to the central database system and also develop a coherent strategic and management plan for its data.124

The University Strategy proposes that a centralised database be established in the MHEST which would ‘follow up and synchronize trends in enrolment, participation rates and attrition from primary school to university level’ and which ‘should provide the Central Bureau of Statistics with comprehensive university data that informs and directs policy’.125




124 MoE (2008: 45–46).

125 Ibid.: 46.


List of sourcesReports, articles and legislation

Bailey T (2014) Higher Education Councils and Commissions in Africa: A comparative study of their roles and functions in eight countries. Cape Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

Chirwa D (2014) Higher Education Councils and Commissions in Africa: A comparative study of the legal basis of their establishment, functions, autonomy and accountability. Cape Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

Cloete N, Bailey T, Pillay P, Bunting I and Maassen P (2011) Universities and Economic Development in Africa. Cape Town: CHET

Higher Education Loans Board Act (Cap 213A) of 1995

KCHE (2008) Handbook on Processes for Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Kenya. Nairobi: Commission for Higher Education

KCHE (2010a) Strategic Plan (2010–2015). Nairobi: Commission for Higher Education

KCHE (2010b) Service Charter. Nairobi: Commission for Higher Education

Kenya Universities Act (Cap 210B) of 1985

Kenya Universities Act No. 42 of 2012

MoE (2008) National Strategy for the Development of University Education (2008-2015). Ministry of Education

MoE (2012) Towards a Globally Competitive Quality Education for Sustainable Development: Report of the Task Force on the Realignment of the Education Sector to the Constitution of Kenya 2010. Ministry of Education, February 2012

Mohadeb P (2013) The Role and Functions of Higher Education Councils and Commissions in Africa: Financing and funding models. Cape Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

National Treasury (2012) Education Sector Report: 2013/14–2015/16 Medium Term Expenditure Framework. Accessed October 2013: http://www.treasury.go.ke/index.php/resource-center/cat_view/102-sector-reports/115-sector-reports-2012

Nganga G (2013) ‘Far-reaching reform as new universities law enacted’. University World News Global Edition, Issue 256, 26 January 2013: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130 122145646505, accessed April 2013

Waruru M (2012) ‘Radical changes to higher education sector’. University World News Global Edition, Issue 245, 28 October 2012

WEF (2012) The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013. Geneva: World Economic Forum


Interview respondents (September 2012)

Archer Arina (Senior Education Officer: Directorate of Higher Education, MHEST)

Bernard Malenya (Senior Deputy Director: Directorate of Higher Education, MHEST)

Daniel Ogutu (Assistant Commission Secretary: Department of Human Resources, KCHE)

David Watene (Senior Education Officer: Directorate of Higher Education, MHEST)

Everett Standa (Former Commission Secretary, KCHE)

Leonard Okemwa (Assistant Director: Directorate of Higher Education, MHEST)

Mrima Haro (Senior Assistant Director of Education: Directorate of Higher Education, MHEST)

Paul Ouko (Assistant Commission Secretary: Department of Planning, KCHE)

Stella Chebiwott (Assistant Commission Secretary: Department of Planning, KCHE)

Wallace Atambo (Senior Assistant Director of Education: Directorate of Higher Education, MHEST)


Appendix: Emergence of the Commission for University Education (CUE)Various issues led to the development of the new Universities Act of 2012, a number of which are highlighted in the National Strategy for the Development of University Education, published in 2008. From a legislative point of view, the Strategy recognised the practice in South Africa and Tanzania of developing legislation which puts all universities (private and public) under one Act: ‘The public universities are established by specific Acts of Parliament that are not in harmony with the Universities Act (Cap 210B) that created CHE and provided for the establishment of private universities.’126 The Strategy highlights the need for the KCHE to expand its regulatory role to include public HEIs (‘strengthen and restructure [K]CHE to be the quality assurance body for all institutions of higher learning’), and called for the ‘drafting of a comprehensive Universities Act to incorporate all players in higher education’.127

The Strategy also pointed to issues concerning the appointment of Commissioners – both in terms of conflict of interest and in relation to size, as highlighted in the quotation below:

The Commissioners are presently appointed by the Minister responsible for university education. ... All the seven vice-chancellors of public universities and two from the private universities are members of the Commission. This leads to conflict of interest as the Commission is mandated to set standards for quality assurance in their own institutions. This contradicts the tenets of good governance.

The 29 member commission is large and is not in line with the current practices of good governance and management. The strategy is to appoint Commissioners who are impartial and independent-minded, have a mix of the following qualities: relevant academic qualifications, experience in financial mobilization and control, and human resource management in comparable institutions, good knowledge of the higher education systems and a strong track record and stature in service to the public.128

These and other issues were also raised in the Ministry of Education Task Force Report, as follows:

(a) The functions of the [K]CHE and the public universities under the legal framework on universities are in conflict with regard to the provision of facilities, cooperation with government in planning the development of university education and admission of students.

126 MoE (2008: 18).

127 Ibid.: 7.

128 Ibid.: 272.


(b) The legal framework mandates [K]CHE to promote only the development and establishment of private universities by charter while the public universities are established under their various Acts of Parliament.

(c) The [K]CHE is not mandated to undertake the long-term planning for the development of university education.129

The Commission for University Education was established by the Universities Act No. 42 of 2012 which replaced the Universities Act of 1985 under which the KCHE had been established. The Universities Bill 2012 was published on 24 September 2012 in Kenya gazette supplement 121130 and the Universities Act of 2012 was enacted in early 2013. The new Act brings about some wide-sweeping changes to the governance of higher education in Kenya. For instance, the Acts of Parliament for the seven public universities and the Legal Orders of 15 constituent colleges were repealed and were awarded Charters by the Commission on 1 March 2013.131 In addition, new governance bodies were established and existing ones restructured, including the following:

• The KCHE was to be replaced by the CUE which will be responsible for the accreditation of public as well as private HEIs and their academic programmes;

• The Joint Admissions Board was to be replaced by the Kenya Universities and Colleges Central Placement Service: ‘Previously, private universities had no representation in JAB – an issue that has been a bone of contention for years. Private universities missed out on top students, whom JAB directed to Kenya’s seven public universities’;132 and

• The establishment of the Universities Funding Board to coordinate the financing of universities as well as the Technical and Vocational Education Funding Board to manage funding for the TVET sector.133

According to one observer, ‘Educationists have hailed the legislation as the single strongest weapon in a government arsenal of action aimed at strengthening a higher education sector that is mired in quality concerns and a biting admissions crisis.’134

The CUE, with its expanded mandate, now undertakes the following functions:135

• Promote the objectives of university education;• Advise the Cabinet Secretary on policy relating to university education;• Promote, set standards and assure relevance in the quality of university education;

129 MoE (2012: 274).

130 Waruru (2012).

131 CUE Newsletter, March–June 2013, p.2.

132 Nganga (2013).

133 Waruru (2012).

134 Nganga (2013).

135 CUE website: http://www.cue.or.ke/about-us/vision-and-mission (accessed October 2013).


• Monitor and evaluate the state of university education systems in relation to the national development goals;

• License any student recruitment agencies operating in Kenya and any activities by foreign institutions;

• Develop policy for criteria and requirements for admission to universities;• Recognise and equate degrees, diplomas and certificates conferred or awarded by foreign

universities and institutions in accordance with the standards and guidelines set by the Commission;

• Undertake regular inspections, monitoring and evaluation of universities to ensure compliance with set standards and guidelines;

• Collect, disseminate and maintain data on university education;• Accredit universities in Kenya;• Regulate university education in Kenya;• Accredit and inspect university programme in Kenya; and• Promote quality research and innovation.

The role and functions of higher education councils and commissions in Africa: A case study of the Kenya Commission for Higher Education

Documents