Review <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>literature</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>basic</strong> educati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> NigeriaThe n<strong>on</strong>-availability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a nearby JSS was identified as a major access issue by stakeholders <strong>in</strong> a number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>states <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> UBEC impact assessment (UBEC 2012a).Table 3.1Supply and distributi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> public primary schools by geo-political z<strong>on</strong>e, 2006/07 to2009/10Z<strong>on</strong>e 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09* 2009/10North West 17,288 19,092 – – 18,337North East 9,757 10,170 – – 10,420North Central 14,279 14,731 – – 15, 415**South West 10,924 10,751 – – 9,611South South 6,800 6,821 – – 6,661South East 6,683 7,150 – – 6,535TOTAL 65,731 68,715 66,979* Data unavailable.** Data miss<strong>in</strong>g from Plateau State.Source: FME (2011b)3.2.2 Distance to schoolRa<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r than look<strong>in</strong>g at school provisi<strong>on</strong> directly, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2010 NEDS c<strong>on</strong>siders school provisi<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> terms <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>school proximity. This is particularly important as distance to school was <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> most widely cited reas<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> survey for children never hav<strong>in</strong>g attended school, menti<strong>on</strong>ed by almost a third <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>dents andby a higher proporti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> poorer and more rural households. It is also c<strong>on</strong>firmed as a major determ<strong>in</strong>ant<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> school attendance <strong>in</strong> statistical analyses <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> household survey data (e.g. L<strong>in</strong>cove 2009; Kazeem et al.2010). School proximity may also be related to c<strong>on</strong>cerns about safety <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> way to and from school,which was specifically menti<strong>on</strong>ed by about 16% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>dents nati<strong>on</strong>ally, with higher figures for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>North East and South West. O<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r qualitative studies also report pupil c<strong>on</strong>cerns about <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> distance fromschool be<strong>in</strong>g a potential deterrent from educati<strong>on</strong>al participati<strong>on</strong>, especially for girls (Okojie 2008;Chege et al. 2008; Bakari 2013; Co<strong>in</strong>co 2012; Dunne et al. 2013).Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2010 NEDS, around 68% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> families nati<strong>on</strong>ally are said to be with<strong>in</strong> a kilometre <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>nearest primary school, a figure that drops to 62% if <strong>on</strong>ly government schools are counted, and to 54%and 56% for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> North East and North West respectively (NPC and RTI Internati<strong>on</strong>al 2011). However, foraround 7% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> households nati<strong>on</strong>ally – and almost double that percentage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> households <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> NorthEsat – it takes over an hour to travel over 6 km to reach <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> nearest primary school. Seventeen percent<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> children nati<strong>on</strong>ally travel over 3 km. Inevitably, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se figures are much higher for rural areas. Inadditi<strong>on</strong> to possible safety c<strong>on</strong>cerns, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> l<strong>on</strong>g distance will have an adverse effect <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> many pupilswho, as statistics testify, are hungry, malnourished and <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> poor health (see NPC and RTI Internati<strong>on</strong>al2011).There are far fewer sec<strong>on</strong>dary schools available across <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> country and <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>refore <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> situati<strong>on</strong> is worseat this level, with much more pr<strong>on</strong>ounced rural and urban differences, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>reby lessen<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> chance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>rural children mak<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> transiti<strong>on</strong> from primary school to JSS. Although around a third <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> pupils arewith<strong>in</strong> 15 m<strong>in</strong>utes’ walk to a sec<strong>on</strong>dary school, almost a quarter <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>m take over an hour to walk toschool (and <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>refore an hour to return home), with figures much higher <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> rural and nor<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rn areas(ibid.). Similarly, <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2004 ESA survey <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> sec<strong>on</strong>dary head teachers, over a quarter reported hav<strong>in</strong>gsome pupils who had to travel 4 km or more to school (FME 2005).EDOREN – Educati<strong>on</strong> Data, Research and Evaluati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> Nigeria 25
Review <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>literature</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>basic</strong> educati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> Nigeria3.3 School <strong>in</strong>frastructureThe state <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> school <strong>in</strong>frastructure has been shown to have a major impact <strong>on</strong> perceived and actualeducati<strong>on</strong>al quality and <strong>on</strong> susta<strong>in</strong>ed pupil access <strong>in</strong> Nigeria (UBEC 2012a; NPC and RTI Internati<strong>on</strong>al2011), as well as <strong>on</strong> teacher motivati<strong>on</strong> (Sherry 2008; Takahashi 2010; UBEC 2012a; Dunne et al. 2013).Despite large amounts <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> m<strong>on</strong>ey be<strong>in</strong>g allocated to UBE, studies have c<strong>on</strong>sistently commented <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>poor state <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> repair <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> many Nigerian public primary schools (e.g. Urwick and Aliyu 2003; FME 2005;Hardman et al. 2008; Holfeld et al. 2008; Ikoya 2008; Ikoya and Onoyase 2008; Sherry, 2008; Boult<strong>on</strong> etal. 2009; Copp<strong>in</strong>ger 2009; USAID 2009; Okojie 2012; UBEC 2012a; Dunne et al. 2013), which FGN readilyacknowledges (FME 2009a). In <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2010 NEDS, over 40% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>dents perceived that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re wereproblems with primary school build<strong>in</strong>gs and facilities, as well as classroom overcrowd<strong>in</strong>g. Regi<strong>on</strong>alvariati<strong>on</strong> was substantial, with figures <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> well over 60% for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> North East and North West and higherfigures too for poorer households. The difference between government and private schools was alsoc<strong>on</strong>siderable, with parents/guardians <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> children <strong>in</strong> government schools around four times more likelyto c<strong>on</strong>sider <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> school to have ‘big problems’ with <strong>in</strong>frastructure, and around five times more likely toc<strong>on</strong>sider overcrowd<strong>in</strong>g to be a ‘big problem’ than parents/guardians <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> children <strong>in</strong> private schools (NPCand RTI Internati<strong>on</strong>al 2011).The most comprehensive nati<strong>on</strong>al survey <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> primary school <strong>in</strong>frastructure was carried out by Ikoya andOnoyase (2008) us<strong>in</strong>g exist<strong>in</strong>g survey and household data from five LGAs <strong>in</strong> each <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> two sample statesfrom each <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> geo-political z<strong>on</strong>es and <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> FCT. They also c<strong>on</strong>cluded that <strong>in</strong>frastructure was <strong>in</strong> a badstate. Specifically:53% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> schools lacked fundamental structures;Only 20% had sufficient <strong>in</strong>frastructure <strong>in</strong> terms <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> quantity and quality and 92% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>m were notregular public schools attended by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> majority <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> children but ra<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r model or unity schools; 14Over 68% had no functi<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g library; and65% had no electricity, 54% had no pipe-borne water, and 78% had no school transport.However, it is not clear whe<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r <strong>on</strong>ly public schools were c<strong>on</strong>sidered <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> study; nor was <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> z<strong>on</strong>albreakdown <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong>frastructural facilities presented.An ESSPIN assessment <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>basic</strong> educati<strong>on</strong> facilities <strong>in</strong> Kano, Jigawa and Kaduna states c<strong>on</strong>cluded thataround 75% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> school <strong>in</strong>frastructure was ‘very poor’ (Copp<strong>in</strong>ger 2009), while <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2009/10 school census<strong>in</strong> Adamawa State deemed 67% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> public primary school classrooms to be <strong>in</strong> ‘poor c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>’ (Dunne etal. 2013).More recently <strong>in</strong> many d<strong>on</strong>or-supported states, primarily <strong>in</strong> nor<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rn Nigeria, substantial <strong>in</strong>frastructuraldevelopment has been reported, both state and d<strong>on</strong>or-sp<strong>on</strong>sored. Table 3.2, tak<strong>in</strong>g figures from <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>relevant 2011/12 ASC reports, shows <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> current situati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> Kano, Jigawa and Kaduna states <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>North West and also <strong>in</strong> Lagos State. The figures illustrate both <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>t<strong>in</strong>ued need to improve school<strong>in</strong>frastructure and <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> variati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>frastructural provisi<strong>on</strong> between states. Lagos State fares bestoverall at primary level, but is <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> worst <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> four states at JSS level, as shown <strong>in</strong> Table 3.3. With <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>excepti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Lagos State, a comparis<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> tables 3.2 and 3.3 suggests that <strong>on</strong> average <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> provisi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>school <strong>in</strong>frastructure is slightly better at JSS than at primary school level. Perhaps even more significantis <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> huge range <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>frastructural quality across <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> LGEAs with<strong>in</strong> each state. Thus, for example, asshown <strong>in</strong> Table 3.2, <strong>on</strong>e LGEA <strong>in</strong> Kano State has 16% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> primary classrooms without a good chalkboard,whereas ano<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r LGEA has 93% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> classrooms without <strong>on</strong>e.14‘Unity schools’, formally known as federal government colleges, were <strong>in</strong>stituted <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 1970s, follow<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> civil war, <strong>in</strong> anattempt to foster nati<strong>on</strong>al unity; <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>y aimed to br<strong>in</strong>g toge<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> best students from around <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> country irrespective <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ethnicity, religi<strong>on</strong> or locati<strong>on</strong>. There are currently two <strong>in</strong> each state. ‘Model schools’ are also generally better resourced than<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> average school.EDOREN – Educati<strong>on</strong> Data, Research and Evaluati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> Nigeria 26
- 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: 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 125 and 126:
Review of
- Page 127 and 128:
Review of
- Page 129 and 130:
Review of
- Page 131 and 132:
Review of
- Page 133 and 134:
Review of
- Page 135 and 136:
Review of
- Page 137 and 138:
Review of
- Page 139 and 140:
Review of
- Page 141 and 142:
Review of
- Page 143 and 144:
Review of
- Page 145 and 146:
Review of
- Page 147 and 148:
Review of
- Page 149 and 150:
Review of
- Page 151 and 152:
Review of
- Page 153 and 154:
Review of
- Page 155 and 156:
Review of
- Page 157 and 158:
Review of
- Page 159 and 160:
Review of
- Page 161 and 162:
Review of
- Page 163 and 164:
Review of
- Page 165 and 166:
Review of
- Page 167 and 168:
Review of
- Page 169 and 170:
Review of
- Page 171 and 172:
Review of
- Page 173 and 174:
Review of
- Page 175 and 176:
Review of
- Page 177 and 178:
Review of
- Page 179 and 180:
Review of
- Page 181 and 182:
Review of
- Page 183 and 184:
Review of
- Page 185 and 186:
Review of
- Page 187 and 188:
Review of
- Page 189 and 190:
Review of
- Page 191 and 192:
Review of
- Page 193 and 194:
Review of
- Page 195 and 196:
Review of
- Page 197 and 198:
Review of
- Page 199 and 200:
Review of
- Page 201 and 202:
Review of
- Page 203 and 204:
Review of
- Page 205 and 206:
Review of
- Page 207 and 208:
Review of
- Page 209 and 210:
Review of