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 NigeriaThe non-availability <strong>of</strong> a nearby JSS was identified as a major access issue by stakeholders in a number <strong>of</strong>states in <strong>the</strong> UBEC impact assessment (UBEC 2012a).Table 3.1Supply and distribution <strong>of</strong> public primary schools by geo-political zone, 2006/07 to2009/10Zone 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 missing from Plateau State.Source: FME (2011b)3.2.2 Distance to schoolRa<strong>the</strong>r than looking at school provision directly, <strong>the</strong> 2010 NEDS considers school provision in terms <strong>of</strong>school proximity. This is particularly important as distance to school was <strong>the</strong> most widely cited reason in<strong>the</strong> survey for children never having attended school, mentioned by almost a third <strong>of</strong> respondents andby a higher proportion <strong>of</strong> poorer and more rural households. It is also confirmed as a major determinant<strong>of</strong> school attendance in statistical analyses <strong>of</strong> household survey data (e.g. Lincove 2009; Kazeem et al.2010). School proximity may also be related to concerns about safety on <strong>the</strong> way to and from school,which was specifically mentioned by about 16% <strong>of</strong> respondents nationally, with higher figures for <strong>the</strong>North East and South West. O<strong>the</strong>r qualitative studies also report pupil concerns about <strong>the</strong> distance fromschool being a potential deterrent from educational participation, especially for girls (Okojie 2008;Chege et al. 2008; Bakari 2013; Coinco 2012; Dunne et al. 2013).According to <strong>the</strong> 2010 NEDS, around 68% <strong>of</strong> families nationally are said to be within a kilometre <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>nearest primary school, a figure that drops to 62% if only government schools are counted, and to 54%and 56% for <strong>the</strong> North East and North West respectively (NPC and RTI International 2011). However, foraround 7% <strong>of</strong> households nationally – and almost double that percentage <strong>of</strong> households in <strong>the</strong> NorthEsat – it takes over an hour to travel over 6 km to reach <strong>the</strong> nearest primary school. Seventeen percent<strong>of</strong> children nationally travel over 3 km. Inevitably, <strong>the</strong>se figures are much higher for rural areas. Inaddition to possible safety concerns, <strong>the</strong> long distance will have an adverse effect on <strong>the</strong> many pupilswho, as statistics testify, are hungry, malnourished and <strong>of</strong> poor health (see NPC and RTI International2011).There are far fewer secondary schools available across <strong>the</strong> country and <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong> situation is worseat this level, with much more pronounced rural and urban differences, <strong>the</strong>reby lessening <strong>the</strong> chance <strong>of</strong>rural children making <strong>the</strong> transition from primary school to JSS. Although around a third <strong>of</strong> pupils arewithin 15 minutes’ walk to a secondary school, almost a quarter <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m take over an hour to walk toschool (and <strong>the</strong>refore an hour to return home), with figures much higher in <strong>the</strong> rural and nor<strong>the</strong>rn areas(ibid.). Similarly, in <strong>the</strong> 2004 ESA survey <strong>of</strong> secondary head teachers, over a quarter reported havingsome pupils who had to travel 4 km or more to school (FME 2005).EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 25
Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> on basic education in Nigeria3.3 School infrastructureThe state <strong>of</strong> school infrastructure has been shown to have a major impact on perceived and actualeducational quality and on sustained pupil access in Nigeria (UBEC 2012a; NPC and RTI International2011), as well as on teacher motivation (Sherry 2008; Takahashi 2010; UBEC 2012a; Dunne et al. 2013).Despite large amounts <strong>of</strong> money being allocated to UBE, studies have consistently commented on <strong>the</strong>poor state <strong>of</strong> repair <strong>of</strong> 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; Boulton etal. 2009; Coppinger 2009; USAID 2009; Okojie 2012; UBEC 2012a; Dunne et al. 2013), which FGN readilyacknowledges (FME 2009a). In <strong>the</strong> 2010 NEDS, over 40% <strong>of</strong> respondents perceived that <strong>the</strong>re wereproblems with primary school buildings and facilities, as well as classroom overcrowding. Regionalvariation was substantial, with figures <strong>of</strong> well over 60% for <strong>the</strong> North East and North West and higherfigures too for poorer households. The difference between government and private schools was alsoconsiderable, with parents/guardians <strong>of</strong> children in government schools around four times more likelyto consider <strong>the</strong> school to have ‘big problems’ with infrastructure, and around five times more likely toconsider overcrowding to be a ‘big problem’ than parents/guardians <strong>of</strong> children in private schools (NPCand RTI International 2011).The most comprehensive national survey <strong>of</strong> primary school infrastructure was carried out by Ikoya andOnoyase (2008) using existing survey and household data from five LGAs in each <strong>of</strong> two sample statesfrom each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> geo-political zones and <strong>the</strong> FCT. They also concluded that infrastructure was in a badstate. Specifically:53% <strong>of</strong> schools lacked fundamental structures;Only 20% had sufficient infrastructure in terms <strong>of</strong> quantity and quality and 92% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m were notregular public schools attended by <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> children but ra<strong>the</strong>r model or unity schools; 14Over 68% had no functioning library; and65% had no electricity, 54% had no pipe-borne water, and 78% had no school transport.However, it is not clear whe<strong>the</strong>r only public schools were considered in <strong>the</strong> study; nor was <strong>the</strong> zonalbreakdown <strong>of</strong> infrastructural facilities presented.An ESSPIN assessment <strong>of</strong> basic education facilities in Kano, Jigawa and Kaduna states concluded thataround 75% <strong>of</strong> school infrastructure was ‘very poor’ (Coppinger 2009), while <strong>the</strong> 2009/10 school censusin Adamawa State deemed 67% <strong>of</strong> public primary school classrooms to be in ‘poor condition’ (Dunne etal. 2013).More recently in many donor-supported states, primarily in nor<strong>the</strong>rn Nigeria, substantial infrastructuraldevelopment has been reported, both state and donor-sponsored. Table 3.2, taking figures from <strong>the</strong>relevant 2011/12 ASC reports, shows <strong>the</strong> current situation in Kano, Jigawa and Kaduna states in <strong>the</strong>North West and also in Lagos State. The figures illustrate both <strong>the</strong> continued need to improve schoolinfrastructure and <strong>the</strong> variation in infrastructural provision between states. Lagos State fares bestoverall at primary level, but is <strong>the</strong> worst <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> four states at JSS level, as shown in Table 3.3. With <strong>the</strong>exception <strong>of</strong> Lagos State, a comparison <strong>of</strong> tables 3.2 and 3.3 suggests that on average <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong>school infrastructure is slightly better at JSS than at primary school level. Perhaps even more significantis <strong>the</strong> huge range in infrastructural quality across <strong>the</strong> LGEAs within each state. Thus, for example, asshown in Table 3.2, one LGEA in Kano State has 16% <strong>of</strong> primary classrooms without a good chalkboard,whereas ano<strong>the</strong>r LGEA has 93% <strong>of</strong> classrooms without one.14‘Unity schools’, formally known as federal government colleges, were instituted in <strong>the</strong> 1970s, following <strong>the</strong> civil war, in anattempt to foster national unity; <strong>the</strong>y aimed to bring toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> best students from around <strong>the</strong> country irrespective <strong>of</strong>ethnicity, religion or location. There are currently two in each state. ‘Model schools’ are also generally better resourced than<strong>the</strong> average school.EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 26
Page 1 and 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON BASICED
Page 3 and 4: Review of
Page 51: 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
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?