- Kenya needs a more integrated and collaborative education system rather than a divide between universities and TVET institutions.
- Strengthening technical education requires addressing systemic challenges, not merely changing institutional structures.
- Quality, innovation, and industry relevance should remain central to both university and TVET education.
The article published in Scholar Media Africa on June 9, 2026, titled “Apex TVET Institutions Should Become Technical Universities Under TVET, Not Conventional Universities,” raises a timely and important conversation about the future of technical and vocational education in Kenya. The concerns about technician shortages, weak industry linkages, and the gradual erosion of practical skills training deserve serious national attention.
However, while the article correctly identifies some challenges facing Kenya’s skills development ecosystem, its proposed solutions are neither as straightforward nor as practical as they appear. The argument rests on several assumptions that overlook the realities of contemporary higher education, labour market dynamics, and the evolving relationship between universities and TVET institutions.
The debate should not be framed as a contest between universities and TVET institutions. Rather, the question should be how Kenya can build a coherent and interconnected education system that serves both national development and individual aspirations.
Danger of Romanticizing the Polytechnic Era
One of the central themes in the article is the suggestion that the former national polytechnics represented a golden age of technical education and that their conversion into universities undermined Kenya’s industrial capacity.
While there is no doubt that institutions such as Kenya Polytechnic, Mombasa Polytechnic, and other technical colleges played a critical role in producing technicians and technologists, portraying the pre-university era as an educational paradise ignores important realities.
The transition from polytechnics to universities did not occur in a vacuum. It was driven by increasing public demand for higher qualifications, changing labour market requirements, and the growing recognition that modern industries require workers who possess both technical competence and advanced analytical capabilities.
Parents, students, employers, and policymakers increasingly viewed degree qualifications as pathways to social mobility and economic advancement. The pressure to upgrade institutions therefore reflected societal demand rather than administrative whim.
Moreover, many technical universities continue to offer practical and industry-oriented programmes. The challenge lies not in their university status but in ensuring that they retain a strong technical and applied orientation.
Misdiagnosis of Kenya’s Skills Shortages
The article largely attributes Kenya’s shortage of technicians and artisans to the conversion of polytechnics into universities. This explanation is persuasive because it offers a simple diagnosis and an equally simple solution. Unfortunately, reality is far more complex.
Kenya’s skills deficit is the result of several interrelated factors. Many TVET institutions struggle with outdated equipment, inadequate workshops, insufficient funding, and weak partnerships with industry. Negative societal perceptions continue to discourage many students from pursuing technical careers, while career guidance systems remain underdeveloped.
At the same time, graduate unemployment affects both university and TVET graduates, suggesting that the problem extends beyond institutional classification.
The persistent mismatch between training programmes and labour market needs has become a challenge across the entire education sector. Simply converting technical universities back into TVET institutions would not automatically resolve these systemic weaknesses.
Placing Technical Universities Under TVETA Is Problematic
Perhaps the most controversial recommendation in the article is the proposal that technical universities should remain universities in name but be regulated under the Technical and Vocational Education and Training Authority (TVETA) rather than under the Commission for University Education (CUE).
While well-intentioned, this proposal raises significant concerns. Universities operate within internationally recognized frameworks that facilitate academic mobility, degree recognition, student exchanges, and postgraduate admissions.
Removing technical universities from the conventional university regulatory structure may create uncertainty regarding the status and recognition of their qualifications, particularly in international contexts. In an increasingly globalized world, Kenyan graduates must be able to compete and move seamlessly across borders. Any regulatory arrangement that creates ambiguity around degree recognition may disadvantage future graduates.
Universities have historically enjoyed a degree of academic freedom and institutional autonomy that allows them to pursue teaching, research, and innovation without undue external interference. TVETA was established primarily to regulate vocational and competency-based training institutions. Expanding its mandate to include universities could blur regulatory boundaries and potentially weaken the academic traditions that distinguish universities from vocational training centres.
Technical universities do much more than train technicians. They undertake research, innovation, postgraduate training, consultancy services, and technology transfer. Modern economies thrive not only on the application of knowledge but also on the generation of new knowledge. A regulatory framework designed primarily for vocational training may not adequately support these broader university functions.
The begging question is, will the social sciences based TVET institutions also have the benefit of transiting to Technical Universities? It sounds weird, doesn’t it?
Proposed KNQF Extension Is Confusing
The article proposes the establishment of a distinct TVET progression pathway culminating in qualifications such as Bachelor of Technology, Master of Technology, and Doctor of Technology. At first glance, this appears innovative.
However, Kenya already possesses a framework capable of accommodating such progression.
The Kenya National Qualifications Framework (KNQF) recognizes qualifications according to learning outcomes and competency levels rather than institutional labels. Whether a doctoral qualification is called a PhD, DBA, DTech, DSc, EdD, or another title, its value depends on the level of achievement and quality assurance mechanisms supporting it.
Creating a parallel hierarchy of qualifications risks introducing confusion among employers, regulators, professional bodies, and international partners. The issue is not the absence of qualification titles but the quality, relevance, and integrity of the programmes themselves.
Research Remains Essential
The article strongly emphasizes applied learning, workplace training, and capstone projects while appearing to downplay the importance of traditional research. This presents a false choice.
Countries that have successfully industrialized did not achieve their success through vocational training alone. They invested heavily in both applied innovation and fundamental research. Many technologies that today drive industrial growth originated from research that initially appeared abstract or commercially irrelevant. Universities therefore serve a dual purpose: preparing skilled professionals while simultaneously generating new knowledge.
A technical university should not be reduced to a sophisticated vocational institution. It must remain a centre of inquiry, discovery, innovation, and technological advancement.
The RIAT Example Is Premature
The article expresses reservations about the possibility of institutions such as RIAT evolving into university-level entities. The critical issue should not be whether a particular institution becomes a university. Rather, the focus should be whether it satisfies the objective criteria required for university status. These include adequate infrastructure, qualified academic staff, governance systems, research capacity, financial sustainability, and compliance with national quality assurance standards.
Institutional elevation should be guided by evidence and performance rather than ideological opposition to university expansion.
Real Crisis in Kenyan Institutions
Perhaps the greatest weakness in the article is its failure to engage with the deeper structural challenges facing Kenya’s education sector.
Universities and TVET institutions alike are grappling with chronic underfunding, aging infrastructure, staffing shortages, weak research support, governance failures, delayed promotions, and increasing political interference. Many public universities are struggling with severe financial distress. Equally, many TVET institutions face resource constraints that limit their effectiveness.
Changing institutional labels without addressing these underlying problems risks creating the illusion of reform while leaving the fundamental challenges intact.
A More Integrated System
Kenya does not need a war between universities and TVET institutions. It needs a coordinated and differentiated system that recognizes the unique contribution of each sector while facilitating movement between them.
Universities should continue focusing on advanced scholarship, research, innovation, and professional education. TVET institutions should remain the primary centres for competency-based technical and vocational training.
Technical universities should retain their university status while strengthening industry engagement, practical training, and applied learning. Students should be able to move seamlessly between TVET and university pathways through well-articulated progression frameworks.
Most importantly, funding models should support institutional missions rather than institutional labels. Industry must play a central role in curriculum design, skills forecasting, internships, apprenticeships, and graduate placement.
In my diagnosis, the article in reference correctly highlights the dangers of mission drift and the need to strengthen technical education in Kenya. However, it presents an overly binary solution that risks creating new problems while failing to address the underlying causes of weak technical training.
Kenya’s challenge is not that universities are too involved in TVET or that TVET institutions aspire to become universities. The real challenge is building an integrated, adequately funded, quality-assured post-secondary education system in which universities, technical universities, polytechnics, and vocational institutions each play complementary—not competing—roles in national development.
YOU MAY ALSO READ: Apex TVET Institutions Should Become Technical Universities Under TVET, Not Conventional Universities
The Author is a Professor of Chemistry; a former Vice-Chancellor; a Higher Education Expert; a Quality Assurance Consultant and Trainer. Contact: okothmdo@uoeld.ac.
