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 Nigeria6.6.4 Overlapping responsibilities at state levelAs highlighted earlier, rapid decentralisation has led to overlapping responsibilities, leading in turn toconfusion, weakened accountability and duplication <strong>of</strong> effort (Orbach 2004; Freinkman 2007; FME2011a). The powerful SUBEBs, as state branches <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> federal UBEC, are <strong>of</strong>ten in conflict with SMoEs(Obanya 2011).In <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>review</strong> <strong>of</strong> education decentralisation in Africa, Winkler and Gershberg (2003) judged Nigeria tobe a ‘textbook case in how not to decentralize,’ with limited delineation <strong>of</strong> authority and responsibilityundermining accountability. Freinkman (2007) also highlighted <strong>the</strong> poor coordination between differentlevels <strong>of</strong> government and between agencies at <strong>the</strong> same level, resulting in duplication <strong>of</strong> effort andneglected areas. The 2004 ESA had earlier <strong>of</strong>fered <strong>the</strong> same conclusions, citing <strong>the</strong> example <strong>of</strong> schoolinspections as one area in which <strong>the</strong>re was duplication <strong>of</strong> effort, at <strong>the</strong> expense <strong>of</strong> teacher development(FME 2005:3; also see Box 6.2).The World Bank Quantitative Service Delivery Survey in Kaduna and Enugu asked head teachers andlocal government education area directors to identify who has <strong>the</strong> power to make decisions regarding16 different issues, and found a widespread lack <strong>of</strong> shared understanding (Berryman and Gueorguieva2007).The World Bank (2007) also commented on <strong>the</strong> challenges that rapid decentralisation has created. Dueto capacity constraints at <strong>the</strong> sub-national level <strong>the</strong>re has been a slower pace <strong>of</strong> public financialmanagement reforms in states, as well as weak intergovernmental coordination.Box 6.2 Overlapping responsibilities, duplication <strong>of</strong> effort and accountabilityA prime example <strong>of</strong> overlapping responsibilities and duplication <strong>of</strong> effort concerns <strong>the</strong> function <strong>of</strong>school supervision, as detailed in a World Bank report (Orbach 2004):At <strong>the</strong> federal level, <strong>the</strong>re is a Federal Inspectorate Service with 1,296 staff that supervises <strong>the</strong> schoolsand also grants accreditation and certification. UBEC has a fully-fledged Monitoring & Evaluationdepartment, responsible for monitoring all aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> primary education programs. Ten zonal<strong>of</strong>fices across <strong>the</strong> country aid this department, each supervising three to four states. Monitoring<strong>of</strong>ficers at <strong>the</strong>se zones visit <strong>the</strong> State Primary Education Boards 22 (SPEBs) as well as <strong>the</strong> primaryschools. SPEBs have School Services Departments whose <strong>of</strong>ficers too inspect <strong>the</strong> schools. In addition,<strong>the</strong> consultants report that it is common for <strong>the</strong> permanent board members <strong>of</strong> SPEBs to visit <strong>the</strong>schools and/or to go over <strong>the</strong> visitation reports <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong>ficers who visit <strong>the</strong> schools and report to<strong>the</strong> chairmen <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> boards. Most, if not all, SMoEs too conduct inspections in <strong>the</strong> primary schools. Asindicated above, many SMoEs have organizational units dedicated to Primary education, and <strong>the</strong>seinclude primary sub-units within <strong>the</strong>ir Inspectorate Departments. LGEAs too have school supervisorswho visit <strong>the</strong> schools and compile school reports. Finally, in many cases, SPEBs and SMoEs havespecial monitoring teams set up to monitor specific projects and programs.With all <strong>the</strong>se supervision activities, <strong>the</strong>re seems to be no shared, coherent and complementaryvision for school supervision within <strong>the</strong> states and between <strong>the</strong>m. Even fundamental policy mattersrequire attention. For example, supervision has many objectives: to provide pedagogical support to<strong>the</strong> teachers, to monitor <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> instruction in <strong>the</strong> schools to check on <strong>the</strong> condition <strong>of</strong> physicalfacilities, to verify that government policies, rules and regulation are being met, and to monitor <strong>the</strong>progress <strong>of</strong> specific plans and programs. The various parties that conduct supervision need tocarefully consider <strong>the</strong>se objectives and consciously select a focus for each. They need to complementeach o<strong>the</strong>r. The consultants’ reports and <strong>the</strong> documentary materials suggest that <strong>the</strong>re is littlecoordination among <strong>the</strong>m and that everybody seems to be doing a bit <strong>of</strong> everything. While some22Now replaced by <strong>the</strong> current SUBEBs.EDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 67
Review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>literature</strong> on basic education in Nigeriaschools are visited quite frequently, o<strong>the</strong>rs ‘have not seen an inspector or any o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong>ficial for years’There is also no evidence that much is being done with all <strong>the</strong> evidence being collected.Source: Orbach (2004: 20–21)6.6.5 Uneven distribution <strong>of</strong> fundsThere are wide state and district variations in government spending, affecting <strong>the</strong> supply and location <strong>of</strong>schools (Santcross et al. 2010; UBEC 2012a). Per student spending differs substantially among states.Federal transfers to states are based on various factors, including state oil generation, population, land,and local revenue generation.State and local governments have considerable political and fiscal autonomy. State governments runindependent fiscal and budgetary systems, and are not required to inform or seek approval from FGN on<strong>the</strong>ir budget, fiscal performance, or allocation <strong>of</strong> resources. No national framework encompassesbudgets at all tiers (Santcross et al. 2010).At <strong>the</strong> school level, many schools do not receive any funding at all. The 2010 ESSPIN schools surveyfound that a third <strong>of</strong> schools in Kaduna and Kano and almost half <strong>of</strong> primary schools in Jigawa receivedno financial support from ei<strong>the</strong>r government or <strong>the</strong> local community (Antoninis 2010). Where SBMCsand o<strong>the</strong>r community networks are encouraged or expected to make up for some <strong>of</strong> this fundingshortfall from <strong>the</strong> community <strong>the</strong>re is a risk <strong>of</strong> exacerbating existing inequalities, in which <strong>the</strong> poorestand least well connected communities are least able to support local schools (Poulsen 2009; Schiffer etal. 2013).The uneven distribution <strong>of</strong> funds has <strong>of</strong>ten been ascribed to politicised funding (Adelabu 2005; Ikoya2008; Ikoya and Onoyase 2008; Williams 2009) or to <strong>the</strong> mismanagement or diversion <strong>of</strong> funds (UBEC2012a).In UBEC’s impact assessment, stakeholders across <strong>the</strong> states identified rural schools and communities inparticular as receiving less funding (UBEC 2012a).6.6.6 Procedure for appointmentsVarious education <strong>of</strong>ficials and school staff members have complained in interviews that appointmentsat state, local government and school level are sometimes made for political reasons, with unqualifiedteachers being appointed perhaps for immediate financial savings (Sherry 2008; Williams 2009; UBEC2012a; Dunne et al. 2013). Teacher appointments can be made in various <strong>of</strong>ficial ways (Thomas 2011)but are prone to political interference, even from <strong>the</strong> state governor, with implications for capacity,trust and competence (Bennell et al. 2007; see also Section 10.3).Box 6.3 A new politics in Lagos?Kingsmill et al. (2012) argue that a ‘new politics’ based on service delivery is beginning to emerge inLagos and that, although this has not yet extended to <strong>the</strong> education sector, it never<strong>the</strong>less could do in<strong>the</strong> future (<strong>the</strong> emphasis has so far been on crime and security).SPARC 2012 carried out a PEA <strong>of</strong> nine states, three <strong>of</strong> which are covered by EDOREN: Katsina,Zamfara, and Lagos. The study concluded that Lagos stands out significantly from <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs as one inwhich <strong>the</strong>re is a substantial middle class and business class who pay sizeable taxes and have aninterest in holding <strong>the</strong> state accountable for service delivery. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r states may haveindividual governors who are interested in promoting effective service delivery but without a politicalEDOREN – Education Data, Research and Evaluation in Nigeria 68
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 93: 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?