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 general view from stakeholder interviews is that <strong>the</strong> wide variation in <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> infrastructure isdue to government funding <strong>of</strong>ten being politicised and uneven at state, LGEA and even school level(Ikoya 2008; Ikoya and Onoyase 2008; Williams 2009; ActionAid 2011; UBEC 2012a). School buildings are<strong>of</strong>ten sub-standard, and <strong>the</strong> awarding <strong>of</strong> building contracts has been found to lack transparency(Coppinger 2009; Ikoya 2008; Dunne et al. 2013). Citing several studies, Ikoya (2008) also argues that,where head teachers were not involved in <strong>the</strong> awarding <strong>of</strong> contracts and <strong>the</strong> contractors were notanswerable to <strong>the</strong>m, supervision <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir work was <strong>of</strong>ten inadequate or even absent. It has also beensuggested that it would be more cost-effective to demolish buildings that are structurally unsound andrebuild <strong>the</strong>m ra<strong>the</strong>r than spend money on rehabilitation that would be a ‘short-term cosmetic job on adefective shell’ (Coppinger 2009: 2). This would seem to be aptly illustrated by <strong>the</strong> external evaluation <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> Community Participation for Action in <strong>the</strong> Social Sector (COMPASS) project, which noted that <strong>the</strong>self-help grants awarded to PTAs and generally used on infrastructural development had notsignificantly improved <strong>the</strong> learning environment because <strong>the</strong> original buildings had been too dilapidated(Holfeld et al. 2008).Table 3.2 Selective characteristics <strong>of</strong> public primary schools in selected states, 2011–2012StateJigawaKanoKadunaLagosIn need <strong>of</strong>major repairs23(12–38)*19(5–47)35(14–53)34(16–54)Percentage <strong>of</strong> usable classroomsWithinsufficientseating38(22–58)68(24–81)65(16–80)29(6–56)Without agood chalkboard37(20–52)40(16–93)51(30–71)34(9–51)* Figures in brackets give <strong>the</strong> percentage range across <strong>the</strong> LGEAs within <strong>the</strong> state.Source: Annual School Census 2011–2012 for Jigawa, Kano, Kaduna and Lagos states.Percentage <strong>of</strong> schoolsWith someclasses heldoutside11(1–24)56(17–82)45(8–75)7(0–22)Without ahealth facility30(9–43)58(11–91)83(19–96)30(2–73)Table 3.3 Selective characteristics <strong>of</strong> public junior secondary schools in selected states, 2011–2012StateIn need <strong>of</strong>major repairsPercentage <strong>of</strong> usable classroomsWithinsufficientseatingWithout agood chalkboardPercentage <strong>of</strong> schoolsWith someclasses heldoutsideWithout ahealth facilityJigawa 14 44 29 13 12Kano 15 47 27 11 16Kaduna 18 42 30 14 16Lagos 32 62 37 14 28Source: Annual School Census 2011–2012 for Jigawa, Kano, Kaduna and Lagos states.Water and sanitationLack <strong>of</strong> safe sanitation and clean water adversely affects educational participation and learning (Ikoyaand Onoyase 2008; UNDP Nigeria 2010; British Council 2012). However, provision <strong>of</strong> potable water andsanitation has been shown to be poor both in schools and, more generally, for households in Nigeria.Table 3.4 shows <strong>the</strong> availability <strong>of</strong> ‘safe water’, ‘safe sanitation’ and electricity for households.EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 27
Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> on basic education in NigeriaTable 3.4Provision <strong>of</strong> basic services in selected areas <strong>of</strong> NigeriaSERVICESafewaterSafesanitationRuralRuralpoorUrbanUrbanpoorNE NW NC SWTotalpercentage <strong>of</strong>householdswith access39.6 18.9 72.8 28.5 30.3 50.2 48.5 73.1 50.95.6 0.5 29.7 2.6 3.0 4.4 9.8 23.1 13.8Electricity 38.1 12.1 85.3 29.8 29.5 36.9 43.9 78.1 54.1Source: Adapted from <strong>the</strong> Human Development Report Nigeria 2008–2009 (2009: 71), based on figures from National Bureau <strong>of</strong>Statistics (NBS) 2006.Several studies and project reports note pupil, teacher and community dissatisfaction with <strong>the</strong> absenceor poor quality <strong>of</strong> water and sanitation provision in schools (e.g. Keating 2005; Sherry 2008; Coppinger2009; Antoninis 2010; Coinco 2012; UNICEF 2012; Bakari 2013; Dunne et al. 2013, etc.).The consequences <strong>of</strong> poor water supply and sanitation include:Pupil and teacher absenteeism (as <strong>the</strong>y leave school to find water, or a place to urinate, and maynot return) (Bakari 2013; Dunne et al. 2013); Girls’ non-enrolment or dropout (UNICEF 2012; Bakari 2013); Ill health, which can also lead to absenteeism and dropout (Bakari 2013);Valuable learning time is wasted as pupils go in search <strong>of</strong> drinking water or are sent to fetch drinkingwater for use in school (Chege et al. 2008; Bakari 2013; Dunne et al. 2013); and Disputes with communities over access to water (Dunne et al. 2013).Guaranteeing privacy through gender-segregated toilet provision is considered particularly important interms <strong>of</strong> improving <strong>the</strong> enrolment and retention <strong>of</strong> girls in school (Theobald et al. 2007; Chege et al.2008; Bakari 2013; British Council 2012; UNICEF 2012; Dunne et al. 2013). One report claims thatdropout rates for girls are higher in schools (primary and secondary) that do not have separate toiletfacilities (UNDP Nigeria 2010), while ano<strong>the</strong>r report puts it more strongly: ‘evidence from GEP suggeststhat girls’ attendance rates can rise by as much as 30% when issues such as water and sanitationfacilities are addressed’ (British Council 2012: 30). Takahashi (2010) also suggested that <strong>the</strong> 5% rise ingirls’ enrolments might be due to <strong>the</strong> improved water and sanitation facilities. However, it is unclear inall three cases exactly how <strong>the</strong> figures were calculated.Improved access to safe water and sanitation has been <strong>the</strong> focus <strong>of</strong> government and donor-aideddevelopments in some states over <strong>the</strong> last few years, <strong>of</strong>ten through SBMCs and PTAs with <strong>the</strong> aid <strong>of</strong>school grants, with many gains recorded (Chege et al. 2008; Okojie 2008; UNICEF 2009a; USAID 2009;Adediran 2010; Takahashi 2010; Pinnock 2012). Bauchi State boasts a 44% increase in boreholes inschools in three years and a 27% increase in hand-washing facilities in schools (UNICEF 2012). In Katsina,SBMCs have been encouraging pupils to ‘wash’ <strong>the</strong>ir hands with ash and to set up water, sanitation andhygiene (WASH) committees and health clubs (ibid.) A key focus <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UNICEF CFS initiative across 900schools in FCT, Ebonyi and Niger states was improving sanitation and hygiene in school; measured on aHygiene and Sanitation Scale, 30% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sampled 23 schools in <strong>the</strong> final evaluation were adjudged to beexcellent in this regard. 1515The composite scale included issues such as access to potable water, whe<strong>the</strong>r latrines were safe, in good repair and cleanand sanitary, whe<strong>the</strong>r students and staff washed <strong>the</strong>ir hands after using latrines, and whe<strong>the</strong>r school buildings were clean.EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 28
Page 1 and 2:
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON BASICED
Page 3 and 4: Review of
Page 53: 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?