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 NigeriaHowever, recurrent expenditures on education increased sharply in 2005 and 2006 largely as a result <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> FGN–UBE Intervention Fund and <strong>the</strong> Virtual Poverty Fund. Although <strong>the</strong> latter isno longer in operation, <strong>the</strong> Conditional Grants to Local Governments scheme is ano<strong>the</strong>r potential source<strong>of</strong> federal income for primary education. Funded by <strong>the</strong> Office <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Senior Special Assistant to <strong>the</strong>President on <strong>the</strong> MDGs from Debt Relief Gains, states and LGAs can apply annually to access funds fordevelopment projects related to <strong>the</strong> MDGs, so primarily in health, primary education, water andsanitation. The NGN 100 million from FGN needs to be matched in total by <strong>the</strong> state and beneficiaryLGA.6.4.3 State and local government expenditureBasic education in Nigeria is funded by federal, state and local government. Although <strong>the</strong> mainresponsibility for financing is at state level, states and local governments rely heavily on federal transfersfor <strong>the</strong>ir revenues. The total revenues <strong>of</strong> state and local governments in Nigeria have amounted to notmore than 5% <strong>of</strong> total government revenues (World Bank 2008).Funding <strong>of</strong> education was increased following <strong>the</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> FGN–UBE Intervention Fund,which FGN uses to support <strong>the</strong> delivery <strong>of</strong> basic education at <strong>the</strong> state level. The fund is divided into fivemain categories:Matching grants to states – 50% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fund is divided equally among <strong>the</strong> 36 states (and <strong>the</strong>FCT) that match <strong>the</strong> funding and have submitted, and had approved, state action plans;The remaining 50% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> funds available to states are allocated to <strong>the</strong> following specific areas <strong>of</strong>development in <strong>the</strong> given proportions:Imbalance funds – 14% aimed at addressing disparities in educational development amongstates and among communities within <strong>the</strong> Educationally Disadvantaged States 20 (<strong>the</strong> 14% isitself divided among <strong>the</strong> following programmes: 70% for community-initiated self-helpprogrammes, 10% for <strong>the</strong> all-girls schools initiative, and 20% for <strong>the</strong> National AlmajiraiEducation Programme); Good performance grant – 5%;Special needs grant – 2%, aimed at supporting children with special needs in inclusiveeducation; Provision <strong>of</strong> instructional materials – 15%;Teacher pr<strong>of</strong>essional development – 10%, focused on methodology and content, with apreference for localised, cluster-based CPD;UBE implementation fund – 2%; andUBE monitoring fund – 2% (UBEC 2012b).States do not always manage to access <strong>the</strong> funds, however. Reasons for this include states’ lack <strong>of</strong> clarityregarding <strong>the</strong> regulations (UBEC 2012b) and <strong>the</strong>ir low capacity to make evidence-based education plansto meet requirements, excessively strict rules for accessing funds, and competition between stategovernments and SUBEBs for control over funds (Schiffer et al. 2013). While acknowledging <strong>the</strong> need toincrease funding to achieve UBE, UBEC’s impact assessment noted that:Up to August 2010, <strong>the</strong>re used to be in excess <strong>of</strong> N60 billion in <strong>the</strong> Central Bank as un-accessed funds …with some states failing to access funds for as many as four years running (UBEC 2012a: 295).20There are 24 Educationally Disadvantaged States, including all <strong>the</strong> states in <strong>the</strong> three nor<strong>the</strong>rn geo-political zones, <strong>the</strong> FCT,Ebonyi in <strong>the</strong> South East, and Akwa Ibom, Bayalesa, Cross River and Rivers states in <strong>the</strong> South South.EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 61
Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> on basic education in NigeriaThat said, state governments spent a total <strong>of</strong> NGN 256 billion on education in 2010 (0.9% <strong>of</strong> GDP)(Central Bank <strong>of</strong> Nigeria 2011) but variations in expenditure on education across states and localgovernments are very wide – ranging from 15% to 27%, with even greater variation across localgovernments <strong>of</strong> between 12% and 34%. Education expenditure shares tend to be significantly higher in<strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn states than in <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn states (World Bank 2008).With Lagos State as an exception, around 85–90% <strong>of</strong> all state government expenditures and around 90–95% <strong>of</strong> all local government expenditures are funded through transfers from <strong>the</strong> Federation Account(see Table 6.2). These allocations are distributed equally across states but topped up with someallowance for factors such as differences in population and land area, and <strong>the</strong> contribution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> stateto oil revenues.Table 6.2Allocation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Federation Account as a percentage <strong>of</strong> total state government revenuein SEPER states, 2000–2005State 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Borno 82.3 58.3 65.2 75.3 74.4Cross River 86.2 85.8 91.6 89.0Enugu 65.9 72.0FCT 25.7 96.6 85.6 68.0 53.1 56.0Jigawa 90.7 98.5 89.6 95.5Kaduna 53.1 53.0 56.4 59.7 58.9Kano 76.6 75.3 73.9 70.6 71.4 74.3Kwara 74.6 50.1 55.8 70.9 73.4 56.8Lagos 28.9 29.6 29.3 22.5 33.9Source: World Bank 2008 (taken from Bennell et al. 2007, and SEPER reports)Notes: Data from state ministries <strong>of</strong> finance. The ‘SEPER states’ are <strong>the</strong> nine states for which a State Education PublicExpenditure Review is available.As highlighted earlier, <strong>the</strong>re are no accurate data on public expenditure in education in Nigeria because<strong>of</strong> a lack <strong>of</strong> information on <strong>the</strong> education expenditures <strong>of</strong> state and local governments (Freinkman 2007;FME 2011a). Although Bennell et al.’s (2007) nine-state Public Expenditure Review has partiallyaddressed this issue, gaps still exist in collating <strong>the</strong> total expenditure on education from both <strong>the</strong> federaland state governments. Within <strong>the</strong> existing structure, <strong>the</strong>re is no constitutional obligation for stategovernments to provide funding information, yet transparency in funding is critical in order to obtain abroad picture <strong>of</strong> funding, as well as to enforce accountability (ibid.).6.4.4 Donor funding for educationAside from debt relief, total external aid to Nigeria has been comparatively small (around 1.5% <strong>of</strong> totalgovernment expenditure). Between 1999 and 2005, <strong>the</strong> average annual commitment to <strong>the</strong> educationsector was USD 69 million and in 2006 it was USD 80 million – around just 7% <strong>of</strong> all sector allocable aid,and (very) roughly 1% <strong>of</strong> total public expenditure on education. There was a major increase in 2007 toUSD 489 million – including USD 249 million from <strong>the</strong> International Development Association and USD211 million (over six years) from <strong>the</strong> UK. However, as <strong>the</strong> PTTE points out, non-FGN financialcontributions are not captured in government budgets in education (FME 2011a).EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 62
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 87: 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?