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> Nigeria5.3.1 Nati<strong>on</strong>al m<strong>on</strong>itor<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> child learn<strong>in</strong>g outcomesNati<strong>on</strong>wide MLA studies were carried out <strong>in</strong> 1996, 2001, 2004 and 2006, all dem<strong>on</strong>strat<strong>in</strong>g very lowlearn<strong>in</strong>g outcomes. Nati<strong>on</strong>al mean percentage test scores atta<strong>in</strong>ed by Primary 4 children <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> firststudy <strong>in</strong> 1996 were 32% <strong>in</strong> numeracy and 25% <strong>in</strong> literacy. Nati<strong>on</strong>al mean scores at <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> JSS level <strong>in</strong> 2004were 25% <strong>in</strong> Ma<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>matics and 32% <strong>in</strong> English (FME 2010). ESSPIN (2009a) reports that, to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> extent<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se results are comparable with o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r countries, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2004 results were <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> worst <strong>in</strong> Africa. In Maths,JSS results were not substantially different between girls and boys and between urban and rural areas.Private school students performed slightly better than public school students. In English, urban andfemale students performed slightly better than average, and private school students aga<strong>in</strong> performedbetter than public school students. However, all results were low.UBEC too has c<strong>on</strong>ducted a series <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> nati<strong>on</strong>al assessments: <strong>in</strong> 2001 <strong>in</strong> English and Maths <strong>in</strong> Primary 4(UBEC 2001); <strong>in</strong> all four core subjects <strong>in</strong> all three upper primary grades <strong>in</strong> 2003 (UBEC 2007); and <strong>in</strong>Primary 6 and all three JSS grades <strong>in</strong> 2006 (UBEC 2009). In all three assessments pupil marks weregenerally very low and it was reported that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir low level <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> English prevented many fromunderstand<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> test <strong>in</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>s (UBEC 2007 and 2009). Generally, better results were ga<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong>urban schools than <strong>in</strong> rural schools but <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re was a noticeable shift <strong>in</strong> mean gender atta<strong>in</strong>ment patternsbetween 2001 and 2003 as girls <strong>on</strong> average performed better than boys <strong>in</strong> some states <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>Ma<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>matics, although results still generally rema<strong>in</strong>ed low: state averages rarely reached 30% across<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> grades <strong>in</strong> English or Social Studies, whereas children fared slightly better <strong>in</strong> Primary 6 Ma<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>maticsand Primary Science with nati<strong>on</strong>al averages <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 36% and 40% respectively. In 2006, Primary 6 meanscores for all four subjects were slightly higher, rang<strong>in</strong>g between 40 and 50%, and higher too than for all<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> JSS grades, which were exceed<strong>in</strong>gly low.The 2010 NEDS provides a simple measure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> literacy: a pers<strong>on</strong> who can read aloud all or part <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> asentence <strong>in</strong> <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> three ma<strong>in</strong> Nigerian languages or <strong>in</strong> English is c<strong>on</strong>sidered to be literate. This isnot a very robust test but does cover a nati<strong>on</strong>ally representative sample (NPC and RTI Internati<strong>on</strong>al2011). A World Bank analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> data <strong>in</strong>dicates that, even when us<strong>in</strong>g this limited test, two-thirds <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>children rema<strong>in</strong> illiterate after Primary 6, with even higher figures for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> North East (Global Educati<strong>on</strong>First Initiative 2013). As Figure 5.1 shows, literacy rates are much higher <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> sou<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rn part <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>country but <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is substantial variati<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g states.S<strong>in</strong>ce <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> literacy test does not require <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>dent to understand <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> sentence, it clearly does notgive an <strong>in</strong>dicati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> functi<strong>on</strong>al literacy, which has serious implicati<strong>on</strong>s for pupils be<strong>in</strong>g able to access<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> curriculum (see Chapter 4).EDOREN – Educati<strong>on</strong> Data, Research and Evaluati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> Nigeria 49
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> NigeriaFigure 5.1 Percentage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> children aged 5–16 able to read, 2010Source: Adapted from 2010 NEDS (NPC and RTI Internati<strong>on</strong>al 2011)Children performed slightly better <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2010 NEDS numeracy tests, but <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se are measured by a verysimple test <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> add<strong>in</strong>g two numbers toge<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r that add up to less than 10. The World Bank analysis <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>data reported that about 10% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> school-age children could not do this simple additi<strong>on</strong> at <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> end <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>primary school (Global Educati<strong>on</strong> First Initiative 2013). Aga<strong>in</strong>, regi<strong>on</strong>al disparities are marked: while 29%<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> children <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> North East are unable to do a simple additi<strong>on</strong> by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> end <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Primary 6, all pupils <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>south can perform <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> task by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> end <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Primary 5 (ibid.)5.3.2 Project-based m<strong>on</strong>itor<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> learn<strong>in</strong>g outcomesESSPIN produced orig<strong>in</strong>al data <strong>on</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g outcomes <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> six states it supports through <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2012Composite Schools Survey (ESSPIN 2013a). The report found that, although ESSPIN-supported schoolswere do<strong>in</strong>g better than c<strong>on</strong>trol schools, learn<strong>in</strong>g levels are still very low. Overall, just 4% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Primary 4students had skills for read<strong>in</strong>g comprehensi<strong>on</strong> and just 7% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Primary 4 students were able to performPrimary 4-level arithmetic. Of serious c<strong>on</strong>cern was <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g that almost half <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Primary 4 pupils were‘not cop<strong>in</strong>g well’ with <strong>basic</strong> number c<strong>on</strong>cepts after be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> school system for four years. Similarlydisturb<strong>in</strong>g was <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g that, ‘as children progress through school, an ever-<strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g proporti<strong>on</strong> fallsbeh<strong>in</strong>d grade-appropriate standards <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> numeracy and especially English literacy’ (ESSPIN 2013a: 14).The f<strong>in</strong>al early grade literacy and numeracy assessments <strong>in</strong> Sokoto and Bauchi, c<strong>on</strong>ducted under <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>USAID-funded NEI, also produced sober<strong>in</strong>g results (USAID 2013 a, b and c). The assessments wereadm<strong>in</strong>istered to a sample <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Primary 2 and Primary 3 pupils <strong>in</strong> 40 public schools, and to a sample <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Stage 1 and Stage 2 pupils <strong>in</strong> 40 IQTE schools (see Box 7.1 for fur<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r details <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> IQTE curriculumstructure) <strong>in</strong> each state. The EGRA <strong>in</strong> Hausa (<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> usual MOI for Primary 1 to 3 <strong>in</strong> nor<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rn Nigeria and <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>home language <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> almost all <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> pupils tested <strong>in</strong> Sokoto and over 80% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> pupils tested <strong>in</strong> Bauchi) wasEDOREN – Educati<strong>on</strong> Data, Research and Evaluati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> Nigeria 50
- 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: 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