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 NigeriaConcentration <strong>of</strong> power and decisions on expenditure in <strong>the</strong> hands <strong>of</strong> a minority (<strong>of</strong>ten <strong>the</strong> headteacher and <strong>the</strong> PTA chair) (Poulsen 2009; Williams 2009);Lack <strong>of</strong> financial transparency and accountability (Williams 2009; Dunne et al. 2013); and Lack <strong>of</strong> ‘voice’ for <strong>the</strong> ordinary community member (Poulsen 2009; Dunne et al. 2013).13.3.1 Self-help grants to PTAsAlthough <strong>the</strong> recent thrust <strong>of</strong> community participation in school improvement has been through SBMCs(see below), <strong>the</strong> USAID-funded COMPASS project, working in Kano, Lagos and Nasarawa states, includeddisbursements <strong>of</strong> small self-help grants to PTAs and training in record-keeping and o<strong>the</strong>r skills. While <strong>the</strong>project’s own completion report considered <strong>the</strong> school’s infrastructural improvements to have beensuccessful and attributed improved pupil enrolment to <strong>the</strong>m (USAID, 2009), <strong>the</strong> external evaluation wasless effusive, concluding that, although managing <strong>the</strong> grants had helped build institutional capacity, <strong>the</strong>grants had been too small in many cases to have much impact on improving o<strong>the</strong>rwise dilapidatedbuildings (Holfeld et al. 2008). The report also bemoaned <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> progress in improving transparencyand accountability, commenting:… <strong>the</strong> descriptions provided by <strong>the</strong> PTA members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> process, overall planning and management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>school were not very impressive and <strong>the</strong> commitment to transparency and accountability was not stronglymanifested (p. 28).13.4 School-based management committeesExperience from o<strong>the</strong>r parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world has shown that where <strong>the</strong> school-based management conceptis properly understood, all stakeholders are clear about roles and responsibilities and communities aresensitised and mobilised, <strong>the</strong>n it can assist in <strong>the</strong> improvement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> education (Adediran andBawa 2009). In Nigeria, specifically, reasons cited for <strong>the</strong> establishment <strong>of</strong> SBMCs have includeddissatisfaction with PTAs, <strong>the</strong> influence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> GEP and UNICEF, and <strong>the</strong> need for a response to <strong>the</strong> crisis<strong>of</strong> funding and teaching quality in basic education (Poulsen 2009).SBMCs were approved by <strong>the</strong> NCE in 2005 for all primary schools and JSSs in <strong>the</strong> country. The NCE alsoprovided guidelines setting out <strong>the</strong> composition and structure <strong>of</strong> SBMCs (Adediran and Bawa 2009). Thecommittee was to have a much broader base than <strong>the</strong> PTA, including six adult female representatives aswell as youth representatives and <strong>the</strong> head girl and boy. Thus, <strong>the</strong> aim on paper was, at least in part, toincrease female and youth participation as a step toward social inclusion and equality. Various projectssponsored by government and/or IDPs (e.g. DFID, UNICEF, <strong>the</strong> World Bank, and ActionAid) have involvedsupport for SBMCs in nor<strong>the</strong>rn Nigeria, in particular in terms <strong>of</strong> producing manuals, carrying out SBMCtraining and/or providing development grants (see Poulsen 2009; Adediran 2010).13.4.1 Key issues with SBMCsFrom <strong>the</strong> outset, one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> key issues with SBMCs has been <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> clarity as to <strong>the</strong>ir purpose.Poulsen’s (2009) study on SBMCs, which included interviews with <strong>of</strong>ficials at <strong>the</strong> federal, state and LGEAlevels, concluded that SBMCs were variously seen as a way to:Ease <strong>the</strong> financial burden <strong>of</strong> government;Promote community ownership;Inform or ‘sensitise’ communities;‘Educate’ parents;Increase girls’ enrolment in school through increased female participation; andCheck up on schools.EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 147
Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> on basic education in NigeriaSome LGEA <strong>of</strong>ficials (e.g. in Lagos and Kaduna) believed that <strong>the</strong> SBMC was accountable to <strong>the</strong> LGEA,despite <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> LGEA had no mandate according to <strong>the</strong> guidance notes and did not provide anyresources (ibid.). Some LGEA <strong>of</strong>ficials in Adamawa were <strong>of</strong> a similar view (Dunne et al. 2013).A lack <strong>of</strong> awareness about SBMCs at <strong>the</strong> school/community level and confusion about <strong>the</strong> differentiationin roles between PTAs and SBMCs has also been noted (Poulsen 2009; Antoninis 2010; Dunne et al.2013). In some communities, PTAs have metamorphosed into SBMCs; in o<strong>the</strong>rs, where <strong>the</strong> PTAs werealready strong, some tensions between <strong>the</strong> two bodies have been seen. Also, it should be noted thatGEP-supported SBMCs have a member <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> PTA on <strong>the</strong> committee (Adediran 2010).Non- or barely functioning SBMCs have also been reported in various studies, both in ESSPIN-supportedstates and in o<strong>the</strong>r states in nor<strong>the</strong>rn Nigeria, some <strong>of</strong> which have been receiving support for SBMCs(e.g. Adediran 2010; Antoninis 2010; ActionAid 2011; Dunne et al. 2013; ESSPIN 2013a). In <strong>the</strong> ESSPINcommunity survey, <strong>the</strong> SBMC had met at least twice a year in only a third <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> schools, and <strong>the</strong>re werereports <strong>of</strong> low attendance. Only half <strong>the</strong> schools claiming <strong>the</strong>y had an SBMC could produce any minutes(Antoninis 2010).SBMC guidance notes have been lacking at <strong>the</strong> school/community level, even in states where SBMCs arebeing supported (Poulsen 2009; Antoninis 2010; Pinnock 2012). It is hardly surprising <strong>the</strong>n that <strong>the</strong>composition <strong>of</strong> committees <strong>of</strong>ten deviates from <strong>the</strong> government guidelines. In particular, <strong>the</strong>yfrequently lack <strong>the</strong> requisite female and youth committee members, and tend to be dominated by localmale elites (Poulsen 2009; Antoninis 2010; ActionAid 2011; Little and Lewis 2012; Dunne et al. 2013).The ESSPIN community survey <strong>of</strong> a representative sample <strong>of</strong> 330 schools and communities, whichconducted structured interviews with over 3,000 respondents including children and parents, noted that<strong>the</strong> existence <strong>of</strong> a female SBMC member varied from 12% in Jigawa to 32% in Kwara State. It also noted<strong>the</strong> tendency to incorporate representatives <strong>of</strong> traditional councils into <strong>the</strong> committee (Antoninis 2010).On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, getting traditional and religious leaders on board to mobilise communities has beenshown to be paramount to successful community mobilisation in support <strong>of</strong> education (Adediran 2010;Pinnock 2012). Thus, <strong>the</strong>re seems to be a tension between <strong>the</strong> need to include important figures withincommunities in order to mobilise support and funds and <strong>the</strong> need to ensure that <strong>the</strong> voices <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ordinary and <strong>the</strong> marginalised are heard.Funding has also been an issue with SBMCs. As Adediran (2010) points out, in any school-basedmanagement system <strong>the</strong> government authorities specify how <strong>the</strong> system should be financed andprovide resources. As this has not been done, many SBMCs exist in name only, unless <strong>the</strong>y have receivedsupport from donor agencies or organisations (ibid.).Instead, SBMCs have been encouraged to mobilise <strong>the</strong>ir own funds – hence perhaps <strong>the</strong> confusion inroles with <strong>the</strong> PTA, which has traditionally raised funds for schools. Some have also managed to securesome funding from LGEAs for school improvement projects based on SDPs, but again <strong>the</strong>se grants are<strong>of</strong>ten externally funded or jointly funded by government and an IDP (Boulton et al. 2009; Adediran2010). However, <strong>the</strong>re is widespread concern that without substantial and consistent governmentfunding, <strong>the</strong> SBMC model <strong>of</strong> school development will not be sustainable, especially given <strong>the</strong> increasingdemand for schooling (Adediran 2010; Little and Lewis 2012; Pinnock 2012).Even though investment in SBMCs has brought many positive results in terms <strong>of</strong> social mobilisation forschooling, social cohesion and material improvements to schools, <strong>the</strong>re is less evidence <strong>of</strong> SBMCscarrying out <strong>the</strong>ir governance function, and a recognition that increased capacity building is needed atschool/community and LGEA level (Adediran 2010).Since <strong>the</strong>se earlier baseline studies, states that have been given external support have shownimprovements (both financial and in terms <strong>of</strong> capacity development), which are discussed below.EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 148
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 123 and 124: Review of
Page 173: Review of
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?