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 Nigeriaquality, or improving accountability. Importantly, SBMCs are not a replacement for governmentinvolvement, and funding for SBMCs remains inadequate (Adediran 2010).A survey <strong>of</strong> ESSPIN states in 2010 found that SBMCs had barely been introduced in Lagos and that inJigawa, Kaduna and Kano only one in three schools had held an SBMC meeting more than once in <strong>the</strong>last year (Antoninis 2010). Even by <strong>the</strong> mid-term survey less than half <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Phase 1 schools (i.e. thoseinvolved since <strong>the</strong> pilot project) were found to have functioning SBMCs, with far lower percentages <strong>of</strong>participation in o<strong>the</strong>r schools in <strong>the</strong> ESSPIN-supported states (ESSPIN 2013a).More recently, in Bauchi and Sokoto, <strong>the</strong> NEI has been working on expanding community involvement inschool governance through community education forums, which involve existing community structuresworking with SBMCs at <strong>the</strong> local level with a state-level forum to channel <strong>the</strong> various forums’ concernsto <strong>the</strong> state (Larcom et al. 2013).6.4 Public financial management in <strong>the</strong> education sectorUnderstanding education finance in Nigeria is complicated by <strong>the</strong> federal structure <strong>of</strong> government.There is no single up-to-date consolidated picture <strong>of</strong> planned education spending at both federal andstate level. Federal and state budgets are published separately, and even <strong>the</strong>n actual spending deviatessignificantly from budgeted levels (Hinchliffe 2002; Odoko and Nnanna 2008).The most recent PTTE report was highly critical and focused on <strong>the</strong> financing <strong>of</strong> education, identifying<strong>the</strong> following issues <strong>of</strong> major concern:FGN ministry, department and agency budgets are <strong>of</strong>ten undermined by what is seen as an arbitrarybudget ‘envelope’;There has been a recent widening <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> gap between <strong>the</strong> ‘real budget’ (<strong>the</strong> money that is actuallyreleased for project/programme implementation) and <strong>the</strong> ‘apparent budget’ (figures that arepublished and publicised);Information is not available on <strong>the</strong> guidelines for allocating resources to various domains <strong>of</strong>expenditure (capital, recurrent and overheads);Funds are tied to concrete activities and deliverables to a certain extent in <strong>the</strong> capital budgets, butnot in <strong>the</strong> recurrent and overheads budgets;The bulk <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> education sector budget is devoted to ‘oiling <strong>the</strong> system’ (recurrent expenditure), to<strong>the</strong> relative neglect <strong>of</strong> developing <strong>the</strong> system (capital expenditure);Budget preparation is done in secret, involving only a small number <strong>of</strong> government <strong>of</strong>ficials;Budgeted funds are <strong>of</strong>ten released late or not at all; and There is currently no synergy among different funding sources (FME 2011a: 37–38).The most recent public expenditure <strong>review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> education sector (World Bank 2008) also held that <strong>the</strong>current process <strong>of</strong> formulating and executing budgets is unreliable and poorly organised. The <strong>review</strong>found that <strong>the</strong> financing <strong>of</strong> key inputs is unpredictable, reflecting a lack <strong>of</strong> clarity regarding which level<strong>of</strong> government is responsible. According to <strong>the</strong> report, <strong>the</strong> budgets <strong>of</strong> most states are based on anoutdated system: <strong>the</strong> policy, programming, and budget functions are not fully integrated; <strong>the</strong>re is littlepolicy debate on spending decisions; budget execution is ineffective; budget performance is hamperedby <strong>the</strong> short time horizon <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> annual budget; and investment budgets are not integrated. In addition,states face an acute shortage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> technical and human capacity needed to design and implementreforms, which is partly due to problems in attracting qualified, experienced pr<strong>of</strong>essionals and partlydue to politically driven appointments taking some precedence over qualifications. Several states areattempting to improve <strong>the</strong>ir budget systems but, in general, states vary in <strong>the</strong>ir reform efforts (SantcrossEDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 59
Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> on basic education in Nigeriaet al. 2010). ESSPIN support has improved <strong>the</strong> information available to state governments but this hasyet to be reflected in budget outcomes (Packer et al. 2011).6.4.1 Levels <strong>of</strong> education spendingAs <strong>the</strong> 2004 ESA put it: ‘Sourcing <strong>the</strong> data on public expenditure on education is like trying to pass anelephant through a needle’s eye’ (FME 2005: 231). It is incredibly difficult as it is not normal practice toput such information in <strong>the</strong> public domain (FME 2011a) and <strong>the</strong>refore it is unsurprising that estimates <strong>of</strong>overall public spending on education vary widely, from around 1% <strong>of</strong> GDP up to 5% (Acosta 2012) andeven over 7% (FME 2011a). O<strong>the</strong>rs (e.g. Santcross et al. 2010) have concluded that <strong>the</strong>re are noplausible estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total financial resources required to achieve UBE.The 2004 ESA was even more pessimistic, declaring:There is no reliable information on <strong>the</strong> total annual expenditure on education by each tier <strong>of</strong> government in<strong>the</strong> last 40 years. The dearth <strong>of</strong> reliable recorders <strong>of</strong> expenditure, especially at <strong>the</strong> state level, and <strong>the</strong>multiplicity <strong>of</strong> accounting system across 36 states would make nonsense <strong>of</strong> any effort at collecting, collatingand analyzing financial records (FME 2005: 31).Despite <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> reliable data, <strong>the</strong> PTTE (FME 2011a) calculated that <strong>the</strong> education budget comprised7.6% <strong>of</strong> total federal spending, as averaged out between 2008 and 2010; this broke down into 5% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>total federal spending and 11% <strong>of</strong> total recurrent spending, showing a decreasing trend.As well as <strong>the</strong>re being no robust estimate <strong>of</strong> financing requirements, <strong>the</strong>re is also no up-to-dateconsolidated picture <strong>of</strong> present planned or actual expenditure by all levels <strong>of</strong> government. A study in2006/07 that estimated overall spending on education based on a sample <strong>of</strong> just nine states found that:Public expenditure was split roughly 32% on primary; 31% on secondary; and 30% on tertiary (with <strong>the</strong> remainder spread across o<strong>the</strong>r activities).Of total expenditures: State governments funded 43%; FGN funded 31%; and Local governments funded 26% (Bennell et al. 2007).Oil revenues are divided roughly 54% to FGN, 31% to state governments, and 15% to local government.In 2005 <strong>the</strong>se federal account transfers made up 71% <strong>of</strong> total revenue for states and 91% for localgovernment (Eboh et al. 2006).There is no single source <strong>of</strong> information on teacher salaries, which form <strong>the</strong> largest single item <strong>of</strong>expenditure on education (2013) and which vary by state. Teacher salaries are discussed in more detailin Chapter 10.6.4.2 Federal government expenditureFGN expenditure on education has been increasing. In real terms, <strong>the</strong> budget for education increased by47% between 2001 and 2006 and <strong>the</strong> sector’s share <strong>of</strong> total FGN expenditure increased from 11.7% to14.5%. Most expenditure is for tertiary education through <strong>the</strong> Tertiary Education Trust Fund. Funded bya 2% tax on private company pr<strong>of</strong>its, <strong>the</strong> fund disperses directly to federal and state tertiary educationinstitutions. 1919See www.tetfund.gov.ngEDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 60
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 85: 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?