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> Nigeriaquality, or improv<strong>in</strong>g accountability. Importantly, SBMCs are not a replacement for government<strong>in</strong>volvement, and fund<strong>in</strong>g for SBMCs rema<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong>adequate (Adediran 2010).A survey <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> ESSPIN states <strong>in</strong> 2010 found that SBMCs had barely been <strong>in</strong>troduced <strong>in</strong> Lagos and that <strong>in</strong>Jigawa, Kaduna and Kano <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong>e <strong>in</strong> three schools had held an SBMC meet<strong>in</strong>g more than <strong>on</strong>ce <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>last year (Ant<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>is 2010). Even by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> mid-term survey less than half <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Phase 1 schools (i.e. those<strong>in</strong>volved s<strong>in</strong>ce <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> pilot project) were found to have functi<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>g SBMCs, with far lower percentages <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>participati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r schools <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ESSPIN-supported states (ESSPIN 2013a).More recently, <strong>in</strong> Bauchi and Sokoto, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> NEI has been work<strong>in</strong>g <strong>on</strong> expand<strong>in</strong>g community <strong>in</strong>volvement <strong>in</strong>school governance through community educati<strong>on</strong> forums, which <strong>in</strong>volve exist<strong>in</strong>g community structureswork<strong>in</strong>g with SBMCs at <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> local level with a state-level forum to channel <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> various forums’ c<strong>on</strong>cernsto <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> state (Larcom et al. 2013).6.4 Public f<strong>in</strong>ancial management <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> educati<strong>on</strong> sectorUnderstand<strong>in</strong>g educati<strong>on</strong> f<strong>in</strong>ance <strong>in</strong> Nigeria is complicated by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> federal structure <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> government.There is no s<strong>in</strong>gle up-to-date c<strong>on</strong>solidated picture <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> planned educati<strong>on</strong> spend<strong>in</strong>g at both federal andstate level. Federal and state budgets are published separately, and even <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>n actual spend<strong>in</strong>g deviatessignificantly from budgeted levels (H<strong>in</strong>chliffe 2002; Odoko and Nnanna 2008).The most recent PTTE report was highly critical and focused <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> educati<strong>on</strong>, identify<strong>in</strong>g<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> follow<strong>in</strong>g issues <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> major c<strong>on</strong>cern:FGN m<strong>in</strong>istry, department and agency budgets are <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten underm<strong>in</strong>ed by what is seen as an arbitrarybudget ‘envelope’;There has been a recent widen<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> gap between <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ‘real budget’ (<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> m<strong>on</strong>ey that is actuallyreleased for project/programme implementati<strong>on</strong>) and <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ‘apparent budget’ (figures that arepublished and publicised);Informati<strong>on</strong> is not available <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> guidel<strong>in</strong>es for allocat<strong>in</strong>g resources to various doma<strong>in</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>expenditure (capital, recurrent and overheads);Funds are tied to c<strong>on</strong>crete activities and deliverables to a certa<strong>in</strong> extent <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> capital budgets, butnot <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> recurrent and overheads budgets;The bulk <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> educati<strong>on</strong> sector budget is devoted to ‘oil<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> system’ (recurrent expenditure), to<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> relative neglect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> develop<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> system (capital expenditure);Budget preparati<strong>on</strong> is d<strong>on</strong>e <strong>in</strong> secret, <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>on</strong>ly a small number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> government <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficials;Budgeted funds are <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ten released late or not at all; and There is currently no synergy am<strong>on</strong>g different fund<strong>in</strong>g sources (FME 2011a: 37–38).The most recent public expenditure <str<strong>on</strong>g>review</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> educati<strong>on</strong> sector (World Bank 2008) also held that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>current process <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> formulat<strong>in</strong>g and execut<strong>in</strong>g budgets is unreliable and poorly organised. The <str<strong>on</strong>g>review</str<strong>on</strong>g>found that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> key <strong>in</strong>puts is unpredictable, reflect<strong>in</strong>g a lack <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> clarity regard<strong>in</strong>g which level<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> government is resp<strong>on</strong>sible. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> report, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> budgets <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> most states are based <strong>on</strong> anoutdated system: <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> policy, programm<strong>in</strong>g, and budget functi<strong>on</strong>s are not fully <strong>in</strong>tegrated; <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is littlepolicy debate <strong>on</strong> spend<strong>in</strong>g decisi<strong>on</strong>s; budget executi<strong>on</strong> is <strong>in</strong>effective; budget performance is hamperedby <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> short time horiz<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> annual budget; and <strong>in</strong>vestment budgets are not <strong>in</strong>tegrated. In additi<strong>on</strong>,states face an acute shortage <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> technical and human capacity needed to design and implementreforms, which is partly due to problems <strong>in</strong> attract<strong>in</strong>g qualified, experienced pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>essi<strong>on</strong>als and partlydue to politically driven appo<strong>in</strong>tments tak<strong>in</strong>g some precedence over qualificati<strong>on</strong>s. Several states areattempt<strong>in</strong>g to improve <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir budget systems but, <strong>in</strong> general, states vary <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir reform efforts (SantcrossEDOREN – Educati<strong>on</strong> Data, Research and Evaluati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> Nigeria 59
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> Nigeriaet al. 2010). ESSPIN support has improved <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> available to state governments but this hasyet to be reflected <strong>in</strong> budget outcomes (Packer et al. 2011).6.4.1 Levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> educati<strong>on</strong> spend<strong>in</strong>gAs <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2004 ESA put it: ‘Sourc<strong>in</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> data <strong>on</strong> public expenditure <strong>on</strong> educati<strong>on</strong> is like try<strong>in</strong>g to pass anelephant through a needle’s eye’ (FME 2005: 231). It is <strong>in</strong>credibly difficult as it is not normal practice toput such <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> public doma<strong>in</strong> (FME 2011a) and <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>refore it is unsurpris<strong>in</strong>g that estimates <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>overall public spend<strong>in</strong>g <strong>on</strong> educati<strong>on</strong> vary widely, from around 1% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> GDP up to 5% (Acosta 2012) andeven over 7% (FME 2011a). O<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs (e.g. Santcross et al. 2010) have c<strong>on</strong>cluded that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re are noplausible estimates <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> total f<strong>in</strong>ancial resources required to achieve UBE.The 2004 ESA was even more pessimistic, declar<strong>in</strong>g:There is no reliable <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> total annual expenditure <strong>on</strong> educati<strong>on</strong> by each tier <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> government <strong>in</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> last 40 years. The dearth <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> reliable recorders <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> expenditure, especially at <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> state level, and <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>multiplicity <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> account<strong>in</strong>g system across 36 states would make n<strong>on</strong>sense <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> any effort at collect<strong>in</strong>g, collat<strong>in</strong>gand analyz<strong>in</strong>g f<strong>in</strong>ancial records (FME 2005: 31).Despite <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> lack <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> reliable data, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> PTTE (FME 2011a) calculated that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> educati<strong>on</strong> budget comprised7.6% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total federal spend<strong>in</strong>g, as averaged out between 2008 and 2010; this broke down <strong>in</strong>to 5% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>total federal spend<strong>in</strong>g and 11% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total recurrent spend<strong>in</strong>g, show<strong>in</strong>g a decreas<strong>in</strong>g trend.As well as <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re be<strong>in</strong>g no robust estimate <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g requirements, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>re is also no up-to-datec<strong>on</strong>solidated picture <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> present planned or actual expenditure by all levels <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> government. A study <strong>in</strong>2006/07 that estimated overall spend<strong>in</strong>g <strong>on</strong> educati<strong>on</strong> based <strong>on</strong> a sample <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> just n<strong>in</strong>e states found that:Public expenditure was split roughly 32% <strong>on</strong> primary; 31% <strong>on</strong> sec<strong>on</strong>dary; and 30% <strong>on</strong> tertiary (with <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> rema<strong>in</strong>der spread across o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>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 <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se federal account transfers made up 71% <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total revenue for states and 91% for localgovernment (Eboh et al. 2006).There is no s<strong>in</strong>gle source <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> teacher salaries, which form <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> largest s<strong>in</strong>gle item <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>expenditure <strong>on</strong> educati<strong>on</strong> (2013) and which vary by state. Teacher salaries are discussed <strong>in</strong> more detail<strong>in</strong> Chapter 10.6.4.2 Federal government expenditureFGN expenditure <strong>on</strong> educati<strong>on</strong> has been <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g. In real terms, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> budget for educati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong>creased by47% between 2001 and 2006 and <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> sector’s share <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> total FGN expenditure <strong>in</strong>creased from 11.7% to14.5%. Most expenditure is for tertiary educati<strong>on</strong> through <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Tertiary Educati<strong>on</strong> Trust Fund. Funded bya 2% tax <strong>on</strong> private company pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>its, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> fund disperses directly to federal and state tertiary educati<strong>on</strong><strong>in</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>s. 1919See www.tetfund.gov.ngEDOREN – Educati<strong>on</strong> Data, Research and Evaluati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong> 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 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 and 76: Review of
- Page 77 and 78: Review of
- Page 79 and 80: Review of
- Page 81 and 82: Review of
- Page 83 and 84: Review of
- Page 85: 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