review-of-the-literature-on-basic-education-in-nigeria-june-2014-3-1

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> on basic education in NigeriaCHAPTER 13: COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOLING13.1 IntroductionIncreasing community involvement in schooling is a key strategy in decentralised governance, whichaims to help improve <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> education, to improve school accountability, and to share <strong>the</strong>financial burden <strong>of</strong> education. A <strong>review</strong> <strong>of</strong> research within SSA (and elsewhere) has shown thatcommunity participation works well in <strong>the</strong> rare instances where <strong>the</strong>re is good understanding andrelations between schools, communities and local educational authorities and a genuine commitment tocommunity decision-making (Dunne et al. 2007; see, for example, Academy for EducationalDevelopment (2002) and De Grauwe et al. (2005) on some countries in West Africa).Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> <strong>review</strong>ed in this section derives from donor-supported initiatives in nor<strong>the</strong>rnNigeria involving UNICEF, USAID (COMPASS), and DFID (ESSPIN and GEP), all involving formal communityinvolvement through <strong>the</strong> PTAs and SBMCs. The 2004 ESA also reports survey findings from across <strong>the</strong>country on community and school relations and involvement (FME 2005).Formal community involvement in public schooling in Nigeria primarily occurs through PTAs and, to alesser extent, SBMCs, although numerous organisations and individuals have been found to supportschools, <strong>of</strong>ten focused around different ethnic or religious groups, occupations or interests, ortraditional leaders (Poulsen, 2009). At <strong>the</strong> same time, however, some CSOs have come in for criticism fornot supporting education sufficiently (Antoninis 2010).After considering community–school relations in general, <strong>the</strong> chapter goes on to look at PTAs and <strong>the</strong>nSBMCs in more detail.13.2 Community–school relationsSeveral studies give examples <strong>of</strong> positive efforts to support schools by community organisations and/orCSOs (see Urwick 2002; FME 2005; Sherry 2008; Poulsen 2009; Little and Lewis 2012; Pinnock 2012), andcommunities have <strong>of</strong>ten been found to be supportive <strong>of</strong> schools and appreciative <strong>of</strong> staff having to workin difficult circumstances and for low pay (Boulton et al. 2009; Dunne et al. 2013). In <strong>the</strong> 2004 ESA, 74%<strong>of</strong> school respondents described school–community relations as ‘cordial’ (FME 2005).However, studies have also highlighted tensions between schools and communities; in <strong>the</strong> 2004 ESA 3%<strong>of</strong> schools typified <strong>the</strong>ir relations with communities as ‘hostile’ (FME 2005). Along with more specificareas <strong>of</strong> conflict (elaborated on below), <strong>the</strong>re are more fundamental attitudinal issues. School staff, localgovernment <strong>of</strong>ficials, PTA or SBMC and community leaders have been found to hold negative views <strong>of</strong>parents, especially those whose children are not enrolled in school or whose attendance is sporadic.They variously claim that such parents do not value education or are ‘ignorant’ or not ‘enlightened’(Sherry 2008; Pinnock 2012; Little and Lewis 2012; Dunne et al. 2013).Thus, communication between schools and communities has tended to be unidirectional and top down,with schools (sometimes toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> LGEA) telling parents what to do and demonstrating a lack <strong>of</strong>understanding about <strong>the</strong> reasons that may prevent parents from sending <strong>the</strong>ir children to school(Poulsen 2009; Pinnock 2012; Little and Lewis 2012), which may <strong>of</strong> course include concerns about <strong>the</strong>quality <strong>of</strong> education on <strong>of</strong>fer (Dunne et al. 2013). Community voice has been noted to be particularlystrong in Islamiyya schools, and it has been suggested that this is perhaps because <strong>the</strong>y are communityowned and because school development is driven by a moral and religious commitment (Boulton et al.2009).As highlighted earlier, although SBMCs have generally been credited with improving relations betweenschools and communities (as well as with LGEAs), <strong>the</strong>y have also been implicated in this negativeEDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 145
Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> on basic education in Nigeriaattitude toward some parents, with reports <strong>of</strong> SBMCs fining parents who send children to herd cattle,denying Fulani herdsman access to water, and asking <strong>the</strong> police to arrest parents who do not send <strong>the</strong>irchildren to school (Little and Lewis 2012; Pinnock 2012). More specifically, teachers <strong>of</strong>ten interpretparents’ lack <strong>of</strong> attendance at meetings or engagement with <strong>the</strong> school about <strong>the</strong>ir children/wards asindicative <strong>of</strong> a lack <strong>of</strong> interest, whereas it may instead be due to lack <strong>of</strong> time (Dunne et al. 2013).In addition to school complaints about parents not sending children to school, <strong>the</strong>re have been tensionsconcerning: community encroachment on school land, such as for construction or dumping <strong>of</strong> waste;access routes; driving vehicles or herding animals across <strong>the</strong> school; and use <strong>of</strong> school property for drugtaking,drinking or vandalism by community youths (Boulton et al. 2009; Pinnock 2012; UBEC 2012a;Dunne et al. 2013).Conversely, parents and community members <strong>of</strong>ten see teachers as lacking <strong>the</strong> requisite qualifications,commitment and pr<strong>of</strong>essionalism (Sherry 2008; Dunne et al. 2013), with teacher absenteeism andexcessive corporal punishment being major sources <strong>of</strong> parental complaint (Sherry 2008; Little and Lewis2012; Pinnock 2012; Dunne et al. 2013).13.3 Parent–teacher associationsPTAs are <strong>the</strong> most established CBOs connected to schools, providing an important link between <strong>the</strong>school and community. In particular, <strong>the</strong>y:Provide a lot <strong>of</strong> material support, particularly in financing and/or providing labour for <strong>the</strong>construction and maintenance <strong>of</strong> school buildings (FME 2005; Theobald et al. 2007; Dunne et al.2013); Recruit and pay for teachers (Theobald et al. 2007; Dunne et al. 2013); Provide learning materials (FME 2005; Theobald et al. 2007);Provide a means <strong>of</strong> communication (and sometimes mediation) between <strong>the</strong> school and <strong>the</strong>community (Dunne et al. 2013); andProvide <strong>the</strong> only financial income for some schools in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> termly levies and o<strong>the</strong>r ad hocfees (Poulsen 2009; Antoninis 2010).In contrast, PTAs have comparatively little involvement in school management (Urwick and Aliyu 2003;Theobald et al. 2007; Poulsen 2009; Dunne et al. 2013), although in <strong>the</strong> 2004 ESA 14% <strong>of</strong> school returnssaid that PTAs helped with school administration (FME 2005). That said, it is not known in what type <strong>of</strong>school (private, Islamiyya, etc.) this occurred or what it entailed.Termly PTA levies finance <strong>the</strong> PTA’s activities, although since <strong>the</strong> legislation for free UBE <strong>the</strong>se havebeen banned in many states. Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong>y are still widespread (FME 2005; Lincove 2009; NPC andRTI International 2011) and for many schools that do not receive LGEA funding <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>the</strong> onlysource <strong>of</strong> income (Poulsen 2009; Antoninis 2010). Importantly, a percentage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> levy sometimes goesto <strong>the</strong> LGEA and state education board (Poulsen 2009).At <strong>the</strong> same time, however, PTA levies are a financial burden on many families (Poulsen 2009; NPC andRTI International 2011), and <strong>the</strong>refore a cause <strong>of</strong> non-enrolment or dropout for children from poorfamilies (ActionAid 2011; Dunne et al. 2013; see also Section 9.3). Non-payment <strong>of</strong> levies can also resultin punishment or exclusion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> child from school, which in turn can result in absenteeism or dropout(FME 2005; Coinco 2012). In <strong>the</strong> 2004 ESA survey, over a quarter <strong>of</strong> pupils said that had been sent awayfrom school at some stage for non-payment <strong>of</strong> school levies (FME 2005).O<strong>the</strong>r criticisms <strong>of</strong> PTAs include: Political interference (Poulsen 2009);EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 146
Page 1 and 2:
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON BASICED
Page 3 and 4:
Review of
Page 5 and 6:
Review of
Page 7 and 8:
Review of
Page 9 and 10:
Review of
Page 11 and 12:
Review of
Page 13 and 14:
Review of
Page 15 and 16:
Review of
Page 17 and 18:
Review of
Page 19 and 20:
Review of
Page 21 and 22:
Review of
Page 23 and 24:
Review of
Page 25 and 26:
Review of
Page 27 and 28:
Review of
Page 29 and 30:
Review of
Page 31 and 32:
Review of
Page 33 and 34:
Review of
Page 35 and 36:
Review of
Page 37 and 38:
Review of
Page 39 and 40:
Review of
Page 41 and 42:
Review of
Page 43 and 44:
Review of
Page 45 and 46:
Review of
Page 47 and 48:
Review of
Page 49 and 50:
Review of
Page 51 and 52:
Review of
Page 53 and 54:
Review of
Page 55 and 56:
Review of
Page 57 and 58:
Review of
Page 59 and 60:
Review of
Page 61 and 62:
Review of
Page 63 and 64:
Review of
Page 65 and 66:
Review of
Page 67 and 68:
Review of
Page 69 and 70:
Review of
Page 71 and 72:
Review of
Page 73 and 74:
Review of
Page 75 and 76:
Review of
Page 77 and 78:
Review of
Page 79 and 80:
Review of
Page 81 and 82:
Review of
Page 83 and 84:
Review of
Page 85 and 86:
Review of
Page 87 and 88:
Review of
Page 89 and 90:
Review of
Page 91 and 92:
Review of
Page 93 and 94:
Review of
Page 95 and 96:
Review of
Page 97 and 98:
Review of
Page 99 and 100:
Review of
Page 101 and 102:
Review of
Page 103 and 104:
Review of
Page 105 and 106:
Review of
Page 107 and 108:
Review of
Page 109 and 110:
Review of
Page 111 and 112:
Review of
Page 113 and 114:
Review of
Page 115 and 116:
Review of
Page 117 and 118:
Review of
Page 119 and 120:
Review of
Page 121 and 122: Review of
Page 171: Review of
show all

review-of-the-literature-on-basic-education-in-nigeria-june-2014-3-1

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?