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 NigeriaBox 6.1 Recent donor initiativesMajor recent international donor initiatives in education include <strong>the</strong> following: 21DFID – Capacity Building for Universal Basic Education (CUBE) 2006–2008 – Kaduna, Kano, Kwara,and federal level – technical assistance provided to improve policy planning. Many lessons werelearnt through CUBE, which helped to inform <strong>the</strong> design <strong>of</strong> ESSPIN, and achievements were made,although <strong>the</strong> project completion report makes clear that <strong>the</strong> planning, governance, implementationand monitoring <strong>of</strong> education policy were seriously inadequate (CUBE 2008).DFID – Education Sector Support Programme in Nigeria (ESSPIN) 2008–2012 – Working in fivenor<strong>the</strong>rn states and Lagos and implemented by a consortium <strong>of</strong> private companies and NGOs, thisprogramme provided support to state governments with <strong>the</strong> key aim <strong>of</strong> school improvement.DFID – Girl’s Education Programme – 2012–2019 (GEP III) – Now in its third phase, all implementedby UNICEF, this programme provides support to five nor<strong>the</strong>rn states, with a focus on raising <strong>the</strong>educational participation <strong>of</strong> girls. GEP I ran from 2007 to 2009 and GEP II ran from 2009 to 2012.JICA – Japan Grant Aid Project 2004–2008 – operated in Niger, Plateau and Kaduna states, withschool infrastructural development being <strong>the</strong> main strand <strong>of</strong> support. A total <strong>of</strong> 70 new primaryschools were built across <strong>the</strong> states using a new, improved design that used local materials, was lowon maintenance and more durable. Furniture, water and sanitation facilities were also provided, aswell as a s<strong>of</strong>t component in training on operation and maintenance. Training on Maths and Scienceteaching at primary level was ano<strong>the</strong>r JICA programme.The external evaluation on <strong>the</strong> school construction project was positive in Kaduna, where <strong>the</strong> propermaintenance training had taken place, but more cautious in Plateau and Niger states where changesin <strong>the</strong> SUBEB personnel meant <strong>the</strong> appropriate training had not always taken place, meaning someschools were already showing signs <strong>of</strong> poor maintenance. In addition, <strong>the</strong> aim <strong>of</strong> helping to reduceclass size by supplying more classrooms was not achieved due to a rise in primary enrolments thatwas higher than anticipated. Indeed, <strong>the</strong> increase was said to be partly due to <strong>the</strong> new facilities(Takahashi 2010).USAID – Community Participation for Action in <strong>the</strong> Social Sector (COMPASS) 2004–2009 – operatedin four states (Bauchi, Lagos, Kano, and Nasarawa) to increase access to education and health care.The programme was implemented by a consortium <strong>of</strong> NGOs led by Pathfinder International andfocused on direct delivery <strong>of</strong> services ra<strong>the</strong>r than working through government systems. It includedradio instruction, teacher training, community mobilisation, school grants, and school healthprogrammes.The external <strong>review</strong> concluded that: <strong>the</strong> consortium approach had been cumbersome, expensive anddifficult to manage; capacity-building elements had failed to build sufficient capacity; <strong>the</strong> geographicalspread had been over-ambitious; it was futile to try to integrate <strong>the</strong> administration <strong>of</strong> health andeducation; <strong>the</strong> in-service teacher education at school level had been insufficient to effect change; andself-help grants to PTAs had been inadequate to significantly improve <strong>the</strong> learning environment(Holfeld et al. 2008). More positively, <strong>the</strong> <strong>review</strong> considered <strong>the</strong> pre-service teacher educationprogramme to have been more effective and noted its success in establishing good relationships andsocial mobilisation at <strong>the</strong> community level (ibid.)USAID – Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Education Initiative (NEI) 2009–2013 – operating in Sokoto and Bauchi, <strong>the</strong> projectaimed to streng<strong>the</strong>n local government capacity to deliver quality basic education by focusing onstreng<strong>the</strong>ning local government capacity to deliver basic education and increasing access <strong>of</strong> OVCs to21Programmes starting in 2013 are not included, for example DFID’s LOCOPE and TDP programmes, USAID’s teacherdevelopment programme, and <strong>the</strong> Global Partnership for Education.EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 63
Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> on basic education in Nigeriabasic education. The EGRA and EGMA assessment programmes, which have provided valuableassessment data, especially regarding <strong>the</strong> comparison between IQTE and mainstream governmentschools, were also carried out as part <strong>of</strong> NEI (see USAID 2013 a, b and c).The mid-term evaluation (Larcom et al. 2013) stated that NEI had had a positive impact: establishingnon-formal learning centres; setting up community education forums (which build on SBMCs andexisting village structures) at LGA and state level, which had reportedly helped states to accept civilsociety contributions to policy development; and undertaking OVC interventions such asstreng<strong>the</strong>ning <strong>the</strong> OVC support teams (although <strong>the</strong> increase in internally displaced people from <strong>the</strong>conflicts in neighbouring states had increased <strong>the</strong> pressure on resources). It was also recognised,however, that many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> developments were at incipient stages.6.5 O<strong>the</strong>r issues in educational governance6.5.1 Provision <strong>of</strong> infrastructureNew school buildings, repairs and extensions, and learning materials are <strong>the</strong> joint responsibility <strong>of</strong> bothlocal and state governments; however, in practice most funds for <strong>the</strong>se purposes derive from <strong>the</strong> stategovernments (Santcross et al. 2010). In general, <strong>the</strong> SUBEB is responsible for primary schools’ and JSSs’infrastructure but <strong>the</strong>re is some overlap with <strong>the</strong> SMoEs, which results in duplication and dilution <strong>of</strong>responsibility (Coppinger 2009). This is particularly an issue for JSSs, which fall under UBE as providedcentrally by <strong>the</strong> SUBEB and are covered as part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ‘traditional’ six years <strong>of</strong> secondary educationprovided by state governments.Ikoya and Onoyase (2008) carried out a survey <strong>of</strong> 650 schools nationwide, documenting <strong>the</strong> generallypoor and inadequate state <strong>of</strong> schools’ physical infrastructure (see Section 3.3). One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> issues <strong>the</strong>yidentified as a barrier to improvement is over-centralised procurement, with individual schools havinginsufficient control over new capital spending.Funding for infrastructure is allocated according to unreliable enrolment data, which may be artificiallyinflated by schools aiming to receive more money (ActionAid 2011). Moreover, <strong>the</strong>re are <strong>of</strong>ten longdelays to disbursement (Ikoya 2008; UBEC 2012a). In addition, <strong>the</strong> awarding <strong>of</strong> construction contractscan lack transparency, sometimes resulting in sub-standard constructions (Ikoya 2008; Coppinger 2009;Dunne et al. 2013).6.5.2 StaffingLGEAs are headed by a local government ES, who in most states is appointed by <strong>the</strong> executive governorand, in a few states, on <strong>the</strong> recommendation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> local government executive chair. Local governmentESs are thus political appointees, who are never<strong>the</strong>less required to have a pr<strong>of</strong>essional educationalbackground, and may serve up to two four-year terms (Santcross et al. 2010).Local school supervisors are employed to play a key role in <strong>the</strong> regular supervision and support <strong>of</strong>schools in <strong>the</strong>ir areas. In practice, however, limited budgets mean <strong>the</strong>y have little access to transport,with <strong>the</strong> result that schools receive variable and infrequent support (UBEC 2012a). Primary and JSSteachers are employed by <strong>the</strong> SUBEBs and <strong>the</strong> LGEAs (Santcross et al. 2010), with LGEAs <strong>the</strong> mainemployers (FME 2011a).Local governments are charged with paying <strong>the</strong> salaries <strong>of</strong> primary school teachers, but <strong>the</strong> payment <strong>of</strong>JSS teachers still lies with <strong>the</strong> state governments (albeit with some lack <strong>of</strong> clarity about <strong>the</strong> division <strong>of</strong>responsibilities between <strong>the</strong> SUBEB and SMoE) (Santcross et al. 2010).EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 64
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 89: 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?