Financing of University Education in Kenya

overall cost of a higher education. The lack of resources of providing students in these situations

Every year, higher education institutions (HEI’s) receive billions of dollars from the Department of Education in the form of loans, grants and subsidies. These funds are authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, and are the primary source of Federal student aid for all HEI’s in the United States. The main Title IV programs include Loans, Grants and Federal Work Study (U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2009).

The US government provides over 150 billion dollars each year to the students’ financial aid. Financial-Aid is one of the most reliable sources for low income students. More than half of College and University students take financial aid for the first bachelors’

Higher Education Act of 1965 which “… provided loan guaranties to banks in order to promote

Financing for post-secondary and higher education has become a very integral part of many students lives.

It is obvious to anyone who looks that the cost of a college education is rising at an alarming rate. Increased tuitions, decreased government funding, and increased institutional debt contribute to a $1 trillion student debt crises. These factors, along with critical mismanagement of funds on the part of Universities create an environment where education has risen at more than twice the rate of inflation. By examining educational institutions finances, we can begin to understand the problem, and how to solve it.

Do not be a fool; the cost of education is drastically rising. The appeal and need for an expense-free secondary educational system is greater than ever. As a world with an incoming generation of the brightest young minds to touch the face of the earth, it is crucial that nations implement government paid college tuitions to enhance the future of education.

The universities are predominantly government-owned and relay on government funding for their main source of income to run their everyday business and they argue that the reduced funding would bring a crisis in higher education system (King 2001, p. 191). On the other hand, government of all political persuasions seems to accept university funding as trivial government agenda. Even though, recently elected coalition government has announced an increase in research funding, the package seems too little compare to recent university funding cut (King 2001, p. 191). The recent proposal to cut university

The tuition increases have come in response to the lack of federal funding to universities, leading them to find their own way to provide for their upkeep. “Recent increases in university tuition fees are part of a new entrepreneurial trend in higher education in which institutions are expected to generate more of their own revenue” (Quirke). The universities have decided that since they can no longer look towards federal funds to fuel their costs of maintenance and revenue, they must find a new route towards attaining much needed funds, and they have chosen to

As years go by, the higher education organizations dynamic was changing. With the goal of finding revenue sources and keeping expenses down, organizational leaders were having to evaluate their budgets and distinguish where revenue sources came from and where the expenses went. The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the rising costs in higher education by including factors identified by the HEPI, identify trends in current funding and expenditure patterns, and identify the implications of the trends for higher education.

Financial aid is a sensational implement for students all around the world. It is done in several different ways and benefits the lives of an abundance of people. Different levels of government work together to fund students by providing programs like FAFSA, for example. The federal government ensures the cooperation of state and local governments by providing funds to help them implement important programs.

Since public expenditure is huge, colleges will function better within sufficient funds. Increased amount from tuition will help colleges to provide better quality of education. Moreover, the other two are local taxes of $8.9 billion and ARRA funds of $2.8 billion. These two account for 6% and 2% in all financial resources, respectively. As we mentioned earlier, ARRA is organized to provide funds to public schools in a recession time. According to SHEA report, author wrote about that ARRA funds for public colleges and universities can mitigate tuition increases and layoffs.

For years, the Ghanaian Ministry of Education and the Ghana Educational service have experienced successes and difficulties in raising educated people in a country that has just reached middle-income status. These institutions acknowledge that without proper planning of education, a functioning structure and effective knowledge and skill acquisition, the country will not develop with its own efforts and Ghana will be dependent on outside forces to manage its economy. One of the biggest issues that confronts Ghana however is that, due to high costs of education and high drop-out rates, there are still thousands of children who are not able to climb through the ladder of education to the tertiary level. The numbers that drop out after every major stage are alarming and most government policies on education have not been able to solve this. The highest rate of drop that is of most concern occurs between the transitions from Junior High School to Senior high school. For any country, this should be alarming. The reasons every child does not get into a Senior High school is mainly that they either cannot afford the school or they cannot get into the few competitive slots. This paper seeks to suggest why the government may be better off providing vouchers for students to go to private schools that will complement the already existing public schools.

In order to gain control over the allocation of resources throughout the university and also to balance the monies being distributed amongst the revenue centres a system of participation/subvention was used by the university administrators. These participations were mere equal contributions (20% of the total tuition fees, sales and service income, and indirect cost recoveries) from all revenue centres and were redistributed back to them as block grants called subventions and these participations were portrayed as negative and subventions as positive indirect income. These features in fact enabled university administrators to focus on university priorities and goals. In allocating subventions their main focus was firstly on differentials in the costs of educating students in different fields and secondly, the revenue centres’ cost/quality ratios.

Winston (2004) stated that one of the essential components to recognize universities is the distinctions in revenue accessible to help student subsidize their education. Initially, he called attention to the fact that both public and private institutions are similar in their subsidies but one uses them to finance items to support their utilization, while the last depends on charitable gifts to get a similar thing and with similar magnitudes. Nonetheless, the comparative appropriations in both open and private sector institutions are created through various cost and price approaches, which prompts diverse measure of student subsidy accessible at every organization. The institutional progression in every division, open and private, is