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 NigeriaTable 3.5 Pupil–teacher ratios in public primary schools in selected states, 16 2011/12JigawaKanoKadunaLagosState All teachers Qualified teachers45(30–81)*47(24–86)29(13–50)30(18–49)79(48–214)63(32–99)47(17–91)31(19–60)*Figures in brackets give <strong>the</strong> percentage range across <strong>the</strong> LGEAs within <strong>the</strong> state.Source: Annual School Census 2011/12 for Jigawa, Kano, Kaduna and Lagos states.The recommended PTR at primary level is 35:1, while at secondary level it is 40:1 (FME 2004a). Table 3.5above shows <strong>the</strong> PTRs for public primary schools in selected ESSPIN-supported states. According to<strong>the</strong>se figures, only Lagos managed to achieve or better <strong>the</strong> recommended PTR. Importantly, however,<strong>the</strong> state PTR is not necessarily a reflection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> classroom realities. As <strong>the</strong> figures in brackets show,<strong>the</strong> mean PTR masks greater diversity at LGEA level, which is also probably true at <strong>the</strong> school level. Classsizes may be even larger due to flawed data, to staff deployment practices within schools, or toclassroom or staff shortages that may result in two classes being put toge<strong>the</strong>r (see Boulton et al. 2009;Dunne et al. 2013; Gabrscek and Usman 2013). Adamawa State, for example, had a mean PTR <strong>of</strong> 24:1 at<strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> Dunne et al.’s research, with <strong>the</strong> case-study LGEAs’ PTRs ranging from 22 to 30:1. However,classroom observations showed classroom numbers <strong>of</strong> up to 70 pupils, with even greater numbers <strong>of</strong>pupil actually enrolled (Dunne et al. 2013). Observation across a sample <strong>of</strong> schools in Kaduna, Kwara andKano indicated PTRs <strong>of</strong> 100:1 and even up to 200 (Boulton et al. 2009), which are at odds with <strong>the</strong><strong>of</strong>ficial PTRs presented in Table 3.5. Similarly, observations for <strong>the</strong> GEP II evaluation recorded someclasses ranging from 90 to 150 pupils (UNICEF 2012). In addition, volunteer teachers and teachers thatare privately contracted by communities, for example, are not included in <strong>the</strong> figures.Box 3.1 Teachers’ difficult working conditions‘We have to buy water to give to <strong>the</strong> children every day as we are not connected to <strong>the</strong> water main.We have no power here and so we cannot even use fans; it gets terribly hot with a hundred childrenin <strong>the</strong> classroom and <strong>the</strong> sun on <strong>the</strong> ro<strong>of</strong> all day. We have five toilets for <strong>the</strong> entire school, but <strong>the</strong>ydon’t work. We relieve ourselves in <strong>the</strong> bushes behind <strong>the</strong> main building. The children relieve<strong>the</strong>mselves everywhere in <strong>the</strong> school yard.’ (teacher)‘I am already tired when I come to school. And <strong>the</strong>n I have to teach a group <strong>of</strong> 80 or more hungry andunruly children. Sometimes, when one <strong>of</strong> my colleagues does not come to school, it is double thatnumber. And I simply don’t have <strong>the</strong> energy to keep <strong>the</strong>m under control by any o<strong>the</strong>r means than <strong>the</strong>cane…’ (teacher)‘All <strong>the</strong> schools I have seen are hugely overcrowded. In one record case, in a rural school, I saw a class<strong>of</strong> over 200 pupils <strong>of</strong> ages ranging from 11 to 21 with only one teacher to attend to <strong>the</strong>m.’ (VSOresearcher)Source: Sherry (2008: 39–40)16PTRs were taken from SMoE reports in selected ESSPIN-supported states since <strong>the</strong> data were not available at <strong>the</strong> nationallevel for primary schools.EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 31
Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> on basic education in NigeriaTeaching resources – in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> a legible chalkboard and a supply <strong>of</strong> textbooks – are frequentlyreported to be non-existent or inadequate (e.g. FME 2005; Adekola 2007; Holfeld et al. 2008; Antoninis2010; Davison 2010; UBEC 2012a; UNICEF 2012; USAID 2013b and c; Gabrscek and Usman 2013). In <strong>the</strong>baseline survey for COMPASS <strong>of</strong> almost 900 public primary and Islamiyya schools in Bauchi, Kano,Nasarawa and Lagos states plus <strong>the</strong> FCT, only 4% <strong>of</strong> teachers said <strong>the</strong>y had access to ‘basic instructionalmaterials’, a figure which had only increased to 6% by <strong>the</strong> mid-term evaluation (Keating and Maloney2007). Only around half <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> secondary schools sampled in one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 2004 ESA surveys reportedhaving an adequate amount <strong>of</strong> chalk (FME 2005).As with o<strong>the</strong>r levels <strong>of</strong> resourcing, supplies <strong>of</strong> textbooks can vary among zones, states, LGEAs, schoolsand within schools, and can sometimes be due to politicised distribution <strong>of</strong> resources (UBEC 2012a).Where textbooks are lacking, <strong>the</strong> cost is <strong>of</strong>ten borne by <strong>the</strong> family (FME 2005; Lincove 2009; NPC andRTI International 2011) and failure to provide textbooks can lead to pupil exclusion and corporalpunishment. Lack <strong>of</strong> teaching materials was found to be <strong>the</strong> second most demotivating factor in <strong>the</strong>national teacher motivation survey, after issues related to pay and conditions (Sherry 2008; see alsoDunne et al. 2013, and Section 10.4). In <strong>the</strong> most recent USAID-funded EGRA and EGMA in Bauchi andSokoto states, reported access to learning materials (i.e. reading books in Hausa and English and aMa<strong>the</strong>matics exercise book) correlated positively with pupil performance (USAID 2013a). Similarly, <strong>the</strong>2001 UBE national primary assessments in English and Maths found that pupils that said <strong>the</strong>y hadtextbooks performed significantly better in <strong>the</strong> subject than those that did not (UBEC 2001).On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, school visits have <strong>of</strong>ten uncovered piles <strong>of</strong> unused books in <strong>the</strong> head teacher’s <strong>of</strong>ficeor in <strong>the</strong> corner <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> classroom or library (Adekola 2007; Ahmed et al. 2008; Chege et al. 2008; Sherry2008; Dunne et al. 2013); according to some, this is because books are considered to be too precious forpupils to use (Sherry 2008; Dunne et al. 2013).There have also been isolated reports <strong>of</strong> some teachers or government <strong>of</strong>ficers selling governmenttextbooks (Chege et al. 2008; Dunne et al. 2013) and <strong>of</strong> books remaining unclaimed at SUBEB or LGEAlevel, in some cases because <strong>of</strong> a shortage <strong>of</strong> money for fuel to distribute <strong>the</strong>m to schools. In AdamawaState, <strong>the</strong> SUBEB reported addressing this ‘leakage’ <strong>of</strong> textbooks and blockage in <strong>the</strong> supply chain bothby customising books with a ‘not for sale’ watermark and initiating direct distribution to schools (ra<strong>the</strong>rthan via <strong>the</strong> LGEA), backed up by follow-up visits to schools by state monitoring teams to ensure that<strong>the</strong> books had arrived (Dunne et al. 2013).3.5 Issues arising and gaps in <strong>the</strong> evidenceThere is a substantial body <strong>of</strong> evidence on <strong>the</strong> widespread poor condition <strong>of</strong> many schools, but <strong>the</strong>differences in infrastructural conditions between LGEAs raises serious questions about <strong>the</strong> processes <strong>of</strong>resource allocation for school renovation and <strong>the</strong> processes by which construction contracts areawarded.A major concern is <strong>the</strong> evidence suggesting that improvements in infrastructure and resource supply arefailing to keep pace with increased demand, thus having a negative impact on educational quality and<strong>the</strong>reby threatening retention and undermining any gains in increased enrolment.The provision <strong>of</strong> water and gender-segregated sanitation is clearly vital to keeping pupils (and staff) inschools, and reports suggest recent improvements in provision in project-supported states, but <strong>the</strong>reare clearly issues around <strong>the</strong> maintenance and cleanliness <strong>of</strong> both. These need to be investigated morethoroughly, including <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> shared community use, fee charges for water, safety for girls aroundtoilet areas, and hygiene and equity issues surrounding <strong>the</strong> cleaning <strong>of</strong> toilets. The reasons why childrenare not using toilets also need to be explored.EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 32
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 57: 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?