PER in Education_Activity 3.2.1.1D


against boys as compared to girls. 2.0 Recommendations and Follow-Up. Every effort should be made by ANSG to adopt at the earliest possible date the new ...

European Development Fund Federal Government of Nigeria National Planning Commission

Support to Reforming Institutions Programme

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE REVIEW OF THE EDUCATION SECTOR IN ANAMBRA STATE

CONSULTANT REPORT TRANSTEC

in consortium with: ATOS Origin/Crown Agents/CDD/Solace

EXTERNALISED DIRECT LABOUR OPERATION GLOBAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT No (9ACP UNI 007)

June 2007 41-03211-30D

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE REVIEW OF THE EDUCATION SECTOR IN ANAMBRA STATE CONSULTANT REPORT Prepared By Prof. Anyaegbunam W. Obi

This report is financed by the European Commission and the World Bank and is presented by Professor Anyaegbunam W. Obi for the National Planning Commission and the European Commission. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the National Planning Commission and the European Commission

41-03211-30D

1

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

ACRONYMS

Acronyms ANSG ASUBEB COE CSOs ECCD EFA ETF EU FGC FGGC FGN FTC JS LEEDS LGA LGAs MDG MOE NA NEEDS PER PTA SEEDS SRIP SSS STU TOR UBEC UNESCO

Meaning Anambra State Government Anambra State Government Universal Basic Education Board College of Education Civil Society Organisations Early Child Care Development Education For All Education Trust Fund European Union Federal Government College Federal Girls Government College Federal Government of Nigeria Federal Technical College Junior Secondary Local Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy Local Government Area Local Government Areas Millennium Development Goals Ministry of Education Not Available National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy Public Expenditure Review Parents Teachers Association State Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy Support to Reforming Institutions Programme Senior Secondary School State Technical Unit Terms of Reference Universal Basic Education Commission United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

41-03211-30D

2

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to acknowledge the tremendous assistance of Dr. Uzochukwu Amakom of the Dept. of Economics, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka in data collection and in the preparation of statistical tables and the power-point presentations used at the inception and dissemination workshops. I also wish to acknowledge the support of the core group of State government officials who furnished the bulk of the information on school population and enrolment figures in respect of state owned educational institutions as well the budget data of the state government. The SRIP State Coordinator and his staff also provided a lot of assistance and encouragement in the completion of the assignment.

41-03211-30D

3

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 Findings There is evidence of improvement in the education situation in Anambra State in the last couple of years especially in terms of ANSG's spending commitment per pupil at all levels in the education system. This notwithstanding, however, serious challenges still remain. The obsolete incremental approach to budgeting still being used in the State does not allow for a realistic costing of educational inputs, thus making it difficult properly assess the impact of government's expenditure efforts.

Even within the existing budgeting system the prevailing pattern of expenditure accords very low priority to precisely those input items best designed to maximize the quality of teaching output.

Capital votes, including those for education are often released rather late in the fiscal year. Average teacher/pupil ratio in the state, though low, was higher in public primary schools as compared to private primary schools. By contrast, at the secondary level, the teacher/student ratio was higher in public than in private schools.

Completion rates at the primary school level for both boys and girls were more than 97 percent but at the senior secondary level this rate was quite low, given high drop-out rates. Similarly, repetition rates were minimal at the primary level as compared to the secondary level. In all, completion, repetition and drop-out rates at the secondary school level were skewed negatively against boys as compared to girls.

2.0 Recommendations and Follow-Up Every effort should be made by ANSG to adopt at the earliest possible date the new and more comprehensive budgeting system prescribed under the NEEDS reforms.

Higher priority should be given to education inputs like Teaching/Learning Materials and Equipment, and Teacher-in-Service Programmes, to raise the quality of educational output in the state 41-03211-30D

4

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

The release of capital votes should be done in good time within the fiscal year to effect implementation of already identified projects and give way for new projects in the subsequent years.

There is need for significant improvement in teacher/pupil ratios in both public and private primary schools in the state. It should be noted that the federal and state targets for teacher/pupils were 1:30 by the end of 2007; but that of Anambra state is still up to 1:50 in public primary and more than 1:60 in private primary schools.

Enrolment and completion rates are still much better for girls than for boys especially at the senior secondary level. Policies that would boost boys’ enrolment and completion rates are necessary, so as to improve the overall literacy rate in the state. The political leadership of ANSG needs to squarely address the adverse equity effects of various hidden fees, levies or illegal payments in the state’s education system.

41-03211-30D

5

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................. 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ 6 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Objectives of the Review ............................................................................................. 8 1.2 Background ................................................................................................................. 8 2.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 9 2.1 Meeting with Key Officials ............................................................................................... 9 2.2 Data Provided.................................................................................................................... 9 3.0 FINDINGS AND OUTPUTS ........................................................................................ 10 4.0 SYNTHESIS/CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 23 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP .............................................................. 24 ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................... 25 Annex 1: Terms of Reference (TOR) .................................................................................... 25 Annex 2: Persons Met ........................................................................................................... 30 APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix A3.2.1: Source of Funding for Anambra State University, Uli ............................... 30 Appendix A3.2.2: Anambra State College of Education (Funding and Sources) .................... 31 Appendix A3.5.1: State-Wide Distribution of Primary Schools ............................................. 31 Appendix A3.5.2: State-Wide Distribution of JS Schools ..................................................... 31 Appendix A3.5.3: Total Enrolments - Primary schools in Anambra State .............................. 32 Appendix A3.5.4: Total Enrolments - JS schools in Anambra State ....................................... 32 Appendix A3.5.1: Figure of Total enrolment by Gender (Primary Schools) ........................... 33 Appendix A3.5.2: Figure of Total Number of secondary Schools in Anambra State .............. 33 Appendix A3.5.5: Total Enrolments by Gender - JS schools in Anambra State...................... 34 Appendix A3.5.6: Total Enrolment - Institutions of Higher learning in Anambra State.......... 34 Appendix A3.5.7: Total Enrollment by Gender (Colleges of Education)................................ 34 Appendix A3.5.7: Total Enrollment – Polytechnics in Anambra State ................................... 35 Appendix A3.6.1: Distribution of Academic and Non-Academic Staff in Primary Schools .... 35 Appendix A3.6.2: Distribution of Academic and Non-Academic Staff in Secondary Schools 36 Appendix A3.6.3: Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff in Anambra State (College of Education) ............................................................................................................................................. 36 Appendix A3.6.4: Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff in Anambra State (Polytechnic) ........... 36 Appendix A3.6.5: Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff in Anambra State (University - Private) ............................................................................................................................................. 37 Appendix A3.6.6: Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff in Anambra State University ............... 37 Appendix A3.7.1: Completion Rates (Primary) by School type and Gender .......................... 37 Appendix A3.7.2: Completion Rates (JSS) by school type and Gender .................................. 37 Appendix A3.7.3: Completion Rates in Senior Secondary by Gender and School Type ......... 38 Appendix A3.7.4: Repetition - Primary school in Anambra State .......................................... 38 Appendix A3.7.5: Transition Rate from Primary to Junior Secondary in Anambra State........ 38 Appendix A3.7.6: Transition Rate from JSS to SS Secondary in Anambra State.................... 38 Appendix A3.7.7: Repetition - JS School in Anambra State .................................................. 39 Appendix A3.7.8: Drop-out - Primary school in Anambra State ............................................ 39

41-03211-30D

6

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

Appendix A3.7.9: Drop-out - JS School in Anambra State .................................................... 39 Appendix A3.7.10: Drop-Out - SS school in Anambra State.................................................. 39 Appendix A3.7.1: Figure for Drop-Out Rates in Anambra State (Senior Secondary Schools) 40 Appendix A3.8.1: Sources of Funding for Anambra State University, Uli ............................. 40 Appendix A3.8.2: Total Enrolment - Institutions of Higher learning in Anambra State.......... 40 Appendix A3.8.3: Total Number of Institutions of Higher learning in Anambra State ........... 41

41-03211-30D

7

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

1.0

INTRODUCTION

This paper reports on the public expenditure review study of the education sector of Anambra State done by the consultant for the period 2003-2007.The assignment called for the collection of secondary data on the sources of funding and patterns of public spending at all levels of education in the state, as well as interviews with some government officials, so as to gain better understanding of the nature of government intervention in the sector. Most of the data were supplied by State government officials, while the rest were sourced from Federal government and other publications.

After a statement of the objectives and background of the study, the remainder of this report is broken into four sections viz: Approach and Methodology; Findings and Outputs; Synthesis and Conclusions; and Recommendations.

1.1

Objectives of the Review

This study is intended as a socio-economic analysis of public expenditure on education, with a focus on the efficiency and equity effects of public spending on the sector. Its main objectives are to: enhance the effectiveness of public spending in the sector; improve service delivery through improved resource allocation and institutional reforms; and improve pro-poor education finance and policy and facilitate access and better learning outcomes for the poor.

1.2

Background

The Support for Reforming Institutions Programme (SRIP) aims at supporting the National Empowerment and Economic Development Strategy (NEEDS) launched on March 15, 2004 and its derived activities at the state and local government levels (SEEDS and LEEDS). In doing so, the SRIP is geared to improving public service delivery. Such an outcome directly calls for a more efficient and more transparent budget management; the end result of which must be reflected in a business climate more conducive to private productive investment and job creation and, subsequently, to a marked reduction in poverty in the affected Programme areas. The outcome of this study would assist both the State Technical Unit (STU) of SRIP in Anambra State and the State Government in promoting “transparent budgeting processes that take account

41-03211-30D

8

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

of past experience” as well as enable Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in the state to participate effectively in the budget process.

2.0

APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The Approach and Methodology adopted for the study followed from the terms of reference (TOR) provided for the assignment.

2.1 Meeting with Key Officials A one day meeting was held with government officials at the inception of the assignment to review the TOR and the data requirements, as outlined by the consultant. The officials were mostly from the Ministry of Education (MOE), and its parstatals, the State Education Commission and the State Universal Basic Education Board. The others were from the Ministries of Finance and Budget, and Planning and Development. A dissemination workshop which discussed the interim report on this project was held towards the end of the assignment for stakeholders invited by SRIP.

2.2 Data Provided Data on school population and enrolment in State government owned institutions at all levels were furnished by state officials. It was discovered that neither MOE nor any of its parastatals kept any records of such figures in respect of private schools. Some state officials were accordingly mandated and deployed to undertake field surveys to obtain primary data for the private schools. Budget data (estimate and actual) were supplied by officials of the Finance and Planning Ministries. School population and enrolment, and budget data in respect of the two Federal government owned tertiary institutions in the State – Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka and Federal Technical Teacher Training College, Umunze – were obtained from various issues of the Statistical Abstracts of the National Bureau of Statistics. Budget data provided by State officials were cross-checked and reconciled against published data in various issues of the annual Approved Estimates and the Accountant-General’s Report. School population and enrolment data provided by MOE and its parastatals are entirely their own internal figures.

41-03211-30D

9

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

3.0

FINDINGS AND OUTPUTS

The findings of this study have to be viewed against the background that education is vital to human development and that access to educational opportunities can contribute significantly to poverty reduction. Investment in human capital has been recognized as a prerequisite for growth and development. Though education benefits the individual, it also has significant social benefits—an educated workforce and increased productivity. Education has large positive spillover effects, produces greater social benefits than private benefits or possesses significant interpersonal utility values. This means that government intervention can raise welfare. Public policy, including educational finance policy can maximize or minimize sub-group differences in educational access and achievement. In what follows tables and charts are numbered serially in accordance with the sub-section to which they relate. Thus for instance Table 3.1.1 would be the first table in the text of sub-section 3.1 while Table A3.2.2 would be the second Appendix table relating to sub-section 3.2. All charts have been placed in the Appendix. Thus Figure A3.5.1 is the first chart in the Appendix relating to sub-section 3.5.

System of Primary and Secondary Education in Anambra State 3.1 Review the education system in terms of levels and grades and the typical ages for each grade and level. Describe the transition of pathways from one level to another.

Primary education in the state is in two stages: the Early Child Care Development (ECCD) for infants of ages between 2 and 4 and the actual primary education with most of the pupils within the age range of 5 and 11 years.

Junior secondary school in the state is for children within the age range of 12 to 15 years while senior secondary is for those between 15 and 18 years.

A child is expected to proceed to the primary level after passing the ECCD level which normally lasts for 2-3 years. The primary level lasts for the period of 5-6 years, the junior secondary is three years and the senior secondary is for another three years.

41-03211-30D

10

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

Transition rates from primary to junior secondary schools in the state have been increasing since 2003 for both boys and girls in public schools (see Table 3.1.1).The rate has been more than 96% since 2003.

Transition rates from junior secondary to senior secondary (Table 3.1.2) have been below 80% since 2003 with the rates for girls being more than those for boys. Transition rates for boys within the period of review got to its peak during the 2005/2006 session while that of the girls was highest during 2006/2007. Table 3.1.1:

Transition Rate from Primary to Junior Secondary in Anambra State

Session/School Type Type 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

Table 3.1.2:

BOYS Private NA NA NA NA NA

Public 96.48 99.78 99.72 99.82 NA

GIRLS Private NA NA NA NA NA

Public 97.64 99.82 99.78 99.85 NA

TOTAL Private NA NA NA NA NA

Public 98.52 99.88 99.85 99.91 NA

Transition Rate from JSS to SS Schools in Anambra State

Session/School Type Type 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

Public Boys Girls 43.3 53 NA NA 78.3 82.2 73.3 93.4 62.6 70.4

Boys NA NA NA NA NA

Private Girls NA NA NA NA NA

Boys 43.3 NA 78.3 73.3 62.6

TOTAL Girls 53.0 NA 82.2 93.4 70.4

Sources of Education Finance 3.2 Review the public, private and other sources (donor) of educational finance and the relative importance of each source to total expenditure on education; the proportion of total expenditure on education to total budgeted and actual expenditure. In short, review the structure and composition of education finance in Anambra State and in particular the source of public funding, and the extent of donor financial support. Sources of funding for primary schools (Table 3.2.1) are mainly from the state government (ANSG), Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) and the Education Trust Fund (ETF)

41-03211-30D

11

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

with the highest funding support coming from ANSG. There is no official provision for school fees at the primary and junior secondary levels.

At the senior secondary school level, the major funding sources are ANSG, students fees and others like ETF with ANSG’s share accounting for more than 70 percent of the total funds required to keep them running.

At the tertiary level especially the university, sources of funds include ANSG, students’ fees, private sector and other sources like ETF. Evidence for the five years under study reveals that state government funding has been decreasing in importance though still the highest in proportion while private sector funding, other sources like ETF and students’ fees have been on the increase.(See tables A3.2.1 & A3.2.2) Sources of Funding for Primary Schools in Anambra State 2003-2007 (N)

Table 3.2.1:

Sources/Session State Government Students' Fee Donor Agencies Private Sector Other Sources (UBEC) Other Sources (ETF)

2003/2004

2005

88,200,000.00

2006 197,229,729.20

2007 197,229,729.20

197,229,729.20

197,229,729.20

63,000,000.00

Tables 3.2.2 and 3.3.3 (below) relating total spending to ANSG’s total budget (actual and estimate) do not tell an encouraging story. The share of education capital estimate to total capital budget (Table 3.2.2) fell from 17.45 in 2003 to 3.58 in 2004, moved up to 4.96 and 10.22 in 2005 and 2006 before dropping to 6.51 in 2007. Performance in terms of actual spending was even more dismal. From zero actual spending in 2003 the share of education in total actual spending recorded 0.92 in 2004 moving up to 3.03 in 2005 before dropping to 0.68 in 2006, the last year for which data were available. Table 3.2.2: Share of Education in State Capital Expenditure Year

State Capital Budget 2003 2004 2005

7,766,950,000 11,709,677,000 16,541,790,005

41-03211-30D

Education Capital Budget 1,355,622,140 419,000,000 821,000,000

State Actual Capital Spending 1,929,580,697 7,138,566,118 15,906,992,444

Education Actual Capital Spending 0.00 65,897,345 481,243,726

12

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

Education % of Budget 17.45 3.58 4.96

Education % of Actual Spending 0.00 0.92 3.03

2006 17,935,490,000 1,832,570,000 2007 35,023,093,000 2,279,900,000 Source: Report of the Accountant General, various years

15,615,230,942 NA

105,579,393 NA

10.22 6.51

0.68 NA

Table 3.2.3: Share of Education in State Total Budget State State Education Education Educatio Education % Government Government Sector Sector Actual n % of of Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Budget state Spending Budget Expenditure Budget Budget 2003 23,393,924,689 14,954,527,944 3,289,254,644 1,079,706,038 14.06 7.22 2004 23,262,277,140 17,100,253,058 2,801,279,214 1,077,432,064 12.04 6.30 2005 30,871,151,505 30,277,414,960 3,487,741,639 2,082,054,009 11.30 6.88 2006 54,605,160,194 37,713,683,872 6,787,630,668 1,698,151,377 12.43 4.50 2007 55,909,206,440 45,375,127,380 8,259,976,183 4,995,835,411 14.77 11.01 Source: State Approved Budgets, various years & Report of the Accountant General, various years

Table 3.2.4: State Actual Capital Spending: Selected Social Sectors Year/Sectors Education Agriculture 2004 65,897,344.75 48,590,205.63 2005 481,243,726.07 8,714,504.68 2006 105,579,393.20 23,250,000.00 2007 Sectoral Percentages as a Total of the four sectors Education Agriculture 2004 20.00 14.75 2005 42.21 0.76 2006 15.09 3.32 2007

Health 136,397,101.54 387,964,170.39 544,609,658.72

Water Supply 78,543,490.65 262,144,039.47 26,089,359.80

Health

Water Supply 41.40 34.03 77.85

23.84 22.99 3.73

Distribution of Financial Responsibility 3.3 How are the responsibilities for education financing distributed or shared among different levels of government (federal, state and local)? Review the role of local government in education finance, as well as the existence of subventions and grants from federal/state in funding education.

Federal government (FGN) funds for education in Anambra state are mostly targeted at federal government institutions which include: Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Federal Polytechnic, Oko, Federal College of Education (Technical), Umunze, Federal Government Girls College (FGGC), Onitsha, Federal Government College (FGC), Nise, the Federal Technical College (FTC), Awka, and other federal agencies of education. ANSG handles the secondary schools and

41-03211-30D

13

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

state owned tertiary institutions while the Local governments (LGAs) are in charge of the primary schools.

Evidence as shown in the table below reveals that LGA contribution to education in the state was highest from 2003 to 2006 while state contribution was highest in 2007. LGAs in principle handle the primary level while the state takes care of State owned secondary schools and tertiary institutions. (LGA funding is actually remitted directly from the Federation Account) Table 3.3.1: Funding from all Tiers of Government Federal State Local Total

2003 2,435,170,955 3,289,254,644 5,398,762,441

2004 3,283,699,017 2,801,279,215 5,994,169,028

2005 3,799,591,109 3,487,741,639 6,655,698,569

2006 6,100,594,010 6,787,630,669 7,390,731,397

2007 5,700,908,812 8,259,976,183 8,207,434,530

11,123,188,040

12,079,147,259

13,943,031,317

20,278,956,076

22,168,319,525

27.18 23.19 49.62

27.25 25.01 47.73

30.08 33.47 36.45

25.72 37.26 37.02

% of Total Education Funding Federal 21.89 State 29.57 Local 48.54

Functional and Economic Allocations of Public Expenditure in Education 3.4 Analyse the share of total expenditure among the different levels of education – how much of the total goes to each level of education and the public expenditure ratios; also analyse the funding of inputs into the education system – allocation between the recurrent and capital expenditures and allocations within the recurrent expenditures – staff and non-staff costs. In short, review the functional and economic allocations of public expenditure in education. Expenditure in the state is divided into recurrent and capital components. Recurrent expenditure takes care of personnel and overhead costs while capital expenditure is used for developmental projects.

Allocation to Education as a percentage of total state budget has been increasing marginally though not up to the UNESCO benchmark of 26% during the years under review with 2007

41-03211-30D

14

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

experiencing the highest increase. Actual releases have been much lower than the budgeted figures in all the years under review. (See Table 3.2.3 above).

Education capital budget as a percentage of total capital budget for the period under review was highest in 2003 (17.45%) and lowest in 2004 (3.58%) but the education actual capital spending was highest in 20071 (11.01%) and lowest in 2003 (0.00%).

Table 3.4.1: State and Education Capital Budget and Actual Expenditure (Million Naira) Year

State Capital Budget 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

7,767 11,710 16,542 17,935 35,023

Education Capital Budget 1,356 419 821 1,833 2,280

State Actual Capital Spending 1,930 7,139 15,907 15,615 NA

Education Actual Capital Spending 0 66 481 106 NA

Education % of Capital budget 17.45 3.58 4.96 10.22 6.51

Education % of Actual Capital Spending 0.00 0.92 3.03 0.68 NA

Comparing capital spending on education with that on other core sectors - Health, Agriculture and Water supply- for the period under review (see Table 3.2..4 above) shows that health has been receiving more budgeted and actual spending followed by education, water supply and finally agriculture.

Evidence from the analysis reveals that ANSG has been the major source of funding for all the three levels of education though in different magnitudes.(See Tables A3.2.1 & A3.2.2).

Budget performance at the primary level was 100% in 2003 and 2006 and least in 2005 as revealed by Table 3.4.2 below. Similarly budget performance for the secondary level was highest in 2004 and 2007 but least in 2006, just as at the tertiary level. The tertiary level had the highest budget performance recorded in 2007. It also attracted more funds for most of the years under review followed by the secondary level.(Table 3.4.2) 1

2007 data are provisional

41-03211-30D

15

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

Table 3.4.2: Budget Performance for all Levels of Education Levels of Funding Items Primary Budget Actual Budget Performance Secondary Budget Actual Budget Performance Tertiary Budget Actual Budget Performance

2003 40,403,159 40,403,159 100.00 978,483,321 621,529,136 63.52 794,498,024 294,105,747 37.02

2004 45,043,480 40,403,159 89.70 918,527,836 613,327,180 66.77 912,980,403 241,732,412 26.48

2005 133,700,000 45,403,159 33.96 972,163,425 622,550,361 64.04 916,522,454 461,038,252 50.30

2006 247,000,000 247,000,000 100.00 987,770,060 599,510,060 60.69 2,661,024,384

697,805,663 26.22

2007 717,200,000 374,321,159 52.19 1,130,770,486 735,105,486 65.01 2,643,417,994 1,403,721,261 53.10

The highest chunk of secondary school spending goes to teachers’ salaries and allowances followed by non-teaching staff salaries and allowances and overheads. Other major blocks of spending at the secondary level include teaching and learning materials/equipments, maintenance of buildings and facilities as well as miscellaneous overheads. (see table 3.4.3 below).

At the tertiary level, salaries & allowances for teaching staff and overheads constitute more than 50% of the spending followed by non-teaching staff salaries and allowances, Teaching/Learning materials and Equipment, Day to Day Admin at School level, Miscellaneous Overheads, Maintenance of Buildings and Facilities and Teacher In-Service Programmes. See table 3.4.4 below for details.

A striking feature of Table 3.4.3, on budgetary expenditure at the Secondary level is the rather insignificant share of expenditure going to items like Teaching/Learning Materials and Equipment and Teacher-in-Service Programmes, in comparison to items like Non-Teaching Staff Salaries and Allowances and Day to Day Admin at School Level. Clearly, the former items are more critical in terms of determining the quality of teaching output. Table 3.4.3: Breakdown of Budgetary Expenditure on Senior Secondary Education Over 5 Year Period (in Percentages) Items Senior Secondary Teachers Salaries and Allowances Non-Teaching Personnel Salaries and Allowances Teaching/Learning materials and Equipment Teacher In-Service Programmes

41-03211-30D

2003 50.47 45.83 0.59 0.14

2004 52.20 43.73 0.60 0.15

16

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

2005 46.68 49.08 0.59 0.14

2006 55.02 42.56 0.59 0.27

2007 58.12 37.66 0.48 0.22

Maintenance of Buildings and Facilities Day to Day Admin at School level Miscellaneous Overheads Total

0.42 2.17 0.37 100.00

0.42 2.53 0.38 100.00

0.42 2.71 0.37 100.00

0.55 0.44 0.56 100.00

0.45 2.60 0.46 100.00

Table 3.4.4: Breakdown of Budgetary Expenditure to Tertiary Education over 5 Year Period )in percentages) Items Tertiary Teachers Salaries and Allowances Non-Teaching Personnel Salaries and Allowances Teaching/Learning materials and Equipment Teacher In-Service Programmes Maintenance of Buildings and Facilities Day to Day Admin at School level Miscellaneous Overheads Total

2003 44.97 24.12 13.02 0.79 4.93 6.98 5.20 100.00

2004 51.59 28.33 3.20 0.64 2.75 8.61 4.89 100.00

2005 38.87 21.26 19.18 0.24 2.70 8.50 9.24 100.00

2006 39.40 22.39 8.92 1.42 2.73 15.27 9.86 100.00

2007 41.54 22.66 5.70 1.80 2.28 14.54 11.49 100.00

Equity Effects of Education Finance 3.5 Examine the equity effects of education finance and public policy in terms of school enrolment rates, completion rates and learning achievements by various subgroups, by gender, by location (urban, rural and senatorial district). How does the state tackle differences in educational system (e.g. hidden fees, PTA dues, or illegal payments) which impose extra financial burden on households and affect access and completion rates and penalize the poor.

Table 3.5.1.below shows the distribution of primary and secondary schools in Anambra State in terms of rural/urban location. At both primary and secondary levels there are more public schools in the rural than in urban areas; on the other hand, and as is to be expected, there are more private schools in the urban as compared to the rural areas.

The table shows that in sum the state has 1,630 primary schools comprising 1,038 (63.68%) public primary schools and 592 (36.32%) private primary schools. Out of these primary schools, 562 (34.48%) are located in the urban while 1,068 (65.52%) are located in the rural areas of the state. The state can boast of 588 Junior Secondary (JS) schools comprising 229 (38.95%) public JS schools and 359 (61.05%) private JS schools out of which 265 (45.07%) are located in the urban areas of the state while 323 (54.93%) are located in the rural areas of the state. The state

41-03211-30D

17

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

also has a total of 562 Senior Secondary Schools (SSS) comprising 203 (36.12%) public SSS and 359 (63.88) private SSS. Out of these SSS, about 58% are located in the urban areas of the state while the other 42% are located in the rural areas of the state. Finally the state has a total of 7 institutions of higher learning made up of 5 universities (one federal, one state owned and 3 privately owned universities); 2 polytechnics (one privately owned polytechnic and one federal polytechnic); 2 Colleges of Education (COE) (one state owned and one federal). Only one of the universities is located in the urban area while all the other three universities, 2 polytechnics and 2 COE’s are located in the rural areas of the state. Table 3.5.1: Location Analysis Location Analysis

Number of Primary Schools Number of JS Schools Number of Senior Secondary Schools

Urban

Rural

562 265 209

1,068 323 150

Public Urban Rural Number of Primary Schools Number of JS Schools Number of Senior Secondary Schools

199 56 75

834 173 128

Public (%) Urban Rural Number of Primary Schools Number of JS Schools Number of Senior Secondary Schools

35.41 21.54 42.13

78.09 52.74 70.72

Total 1,630 588 359

Urban (%) 34.48 45.07 58.22

Private Urban Rural 363 204 103

234 155 53

Private (%) Urban Rural 64.59 78.46 57.87

21.91 47.26 29.28

Rural (%) 65.52 54.93 41.78

Total 1,630 588 359

Total 100 100 100

Tables A5.1 and A5.2 show the distribution of primary and junior secondary schools in the state by Local Government (Council) Areas. Close inspection of the tables reveals no systematic pattern in the distribution. Given that most of the public schools pre-date the LGA’s, this finding should perhaps not be surprising. It is common knowledge that creation of local governments in the country (by successive military administrations since 1976) has been largely arbitrary – i.e. not necessarily related to population or any other objective developmental indicator. It is known for instance that the number of LGA,s created in a state (i.e. a federating unit of the Federal Republic of Nigeria under the existing constitution), the size of the LGA and even the location of the Council’s headquarters are often a function of the political clout and influence which the local chieftains wield vis-a-vis the central government authorities. This suggests that ANSG should exercise special care in coordinating education spending in the LGA’s to ensure state wide equity.

41-03211-30D

18

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

Going by discussions with the top civil service hierarchy of the Education Ministry the only discernible official policy relating to school enrolment rates, completion rates and learning achievements by various subgroups relates to the publicly expressed concern about declining school enrolment among male children of secondary school age. As regards the problem of hidden fees and various illegal collections, etc the official position appears to be that while they are aware of the problem they are hardly in a position to effectively address it, in view of limited administrative and other capacities. There does not appear to be general awareness of the discriminatory adverse effects of the problem on the poor. Performance of the Education System 3.6 Assess the performance of the education system in terms of efficient and effective use of inputs; and would budget reallocation improve the efficiency of the system? Attempt a comparative unit cost analysis for different levels of education, between rural and urban schools e.t.c using standard benchmarks assess the utilization of teaching and nonteaching staff vis-à-vis students, the distribution and deployment of teachers and the average teacher cost per year relative to the average wage in the civil service, the average/student classroom ratio by level of education for rural and urban schools, and the distribution of student/school ratio.

Unit costs of education differ significantly across all the levels in the state as revealed by table 3.6.1 below. Primary level unit cost was highest in 2007 with government commitment to the tune of N3,082.05 for every pupil in the primary school and lowest in 2004 with an average commitment of N1,354.79 for every pupil in Anambra primary school.

At the secondary level average unit cost was virtually the same until 2006 when it also jumped to N8,863 in 2007 from N6,028. 2003 experienced the lowest unit cost of N3, 057 for all the years under review.

At the tertiary level, average unit cost was comparatively high and rising during the review period, reaching the peak of N104,654 in 2007 as against the lowest value of N31,348 in 2003.

41-03211-30D

19

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

In summary, average unit cost of education has been lowest at the primary level, followed by the secondary and highest at the tertiary level. The gap between the secondary and tertiary levels is quite large unlike the gap between the secondary and the primary levels.

The teacher/pupil ratio is 1:50 in public primary schools and 1:68 at the private primary schools. The ratio at the secondary level is 1:39 for public schools and 1:24 for private schools. This finding implies than there are more teachers to handle the available number of pupils in the public primary schools than the private primary schools. The reverse is the case at the secondary level.

At the tertiary level, teacher/student ratio is 1:17 at the College of education, 1:88 at the polytechnic and 1:23 at the university. Table 3.6.1: Unit Cost of Education across levels 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary

Average

1,927.47 1,354.79 1,828.00 1,998.21 3,082.05

7,057.10 6,558.44 6,028.21 7,026.39 8,863.73

31,348.72 33,360.81 47,682.10 41,625.25 104,645.99

13,023.48 13,410.13 18,120.03 16,563.92 38,481.70

Distribution of teachers at both primary and secondary levels has been fair to location (rural and urban) with female teachers dominating at both public and private schools at both levels of education.

At

the

primary

level,

laboratory

personnel,

secretarial/office

personnel,

cleaners/gardeners/janitors, nurses/matrons, drivers were non-existent in the public primary schools.

Data provided by ANSG officials show that average teacher costs during the review period were N237,454.36, N197,135.72, and N459,553,17 at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels respectively; while the average wage in the State civil service was said to be N247,378.47 per annum. With all this, along with available information on minimum teachers’ qualifications at various levels of education, it might have been relatively straight forward and more meaningful to attempt an assessment of the overall performance of the education system in terms of

41-03211-30D

20

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

“efficient and effective use of inputs” but for the fact that ANSG, like virtually all other governments in the country today is still using the obsolete incremental system of budgeting.

Under the NEEDS reforms all tiers of government in the country were supposed, as from the 2005 budget year to change over to the more comprehensive “base” budgeting system, which entails a detailed and explicit formulation of policy targets and strategies for each year. Under this “budgeting from scratch” approach, financial allocations would be made on the basis of detailed analysis and costing of resources and strategies required to achieve quantitatively specified policy targets; all this of course within the context of a Medium Term Expenditure Framework designed to enhance budget implementation by avoiding the effects of the usual revenue boom and burst cycles arising invariably from fluctuations in world crude oil prices. As far as is known, even FGN itself is yet to change over to the new budgeting system.

Repetition and Drop-Out Rates 3.7 Review the repetition and dropout rates at different levels of the education system. Also review students’ outcome in terms of enrolment rates, completion rates and learning outcomes and transition rates between levels of education.

Drop-out rates have been very low in primary and junior secondary levels but high at the senior secondary level (more than 20%) for the period under review with boys and girls alike. At the tertiary level, the drop-out rates have been minimal.( See Tables A3.7.8 – 10).

Repetition rate is a function of failure rate. For the period under study, failure rates have been low hence leading to low repetition rates at primary, JS, SS and tertiary levels. (See Tables A3.7.4 and A3.7.7)

Against the immediately foregoing must be placed the fact of the not too encouraging picture of school enrolment rates in the State (Tables A3.5.3 – A3.5.8, and the corresponding charts). Table A3.5.3 for instance shows a sharp decline in growth rate of total primary school enrolment from 31.50% in 2004/04 to 3.02% in 2007/08! For total enrolments in JS schools (Table A3.5.4) the growth rate in the same period dropped from 12.31% to 0.17% before recovering somewhat to 7.73% and 8.06%. As is to be expected, once gross enrolment rates are disaggregated by gender (Table A3.5.5) a sharp disparity between the

41-03211-30D

21

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

situation of boys and girls immediately manifests. The table shows that while the JS enrolment rate for girls increased from 55.84% in 2003/04 to 62.08% in 2007/08, that for boys fell from 44.16% to 37.92% in the same period.

Table 3.7.1: Completion Rates (Primary) Session 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

Public

Private

97.20 99.81 99.80 99.83 NA

ECCD

98.97 98.99 99.23 100.00 NA

99.95 99.96 99.97 99.99 NA

Total 97.53 99.82 99.82 99.85 NA

Table 3.7.2: Completion Rates (Junior Secondary) Session 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

Public NA NA 99.80 99.89 NA

Private 97.67 98.79 99.87 99.88 NA

Others NA NA NA NA NA

Total 97.67 98.79 99.84 99.89 NA

Others

Total 67.36 74.90 83.24 67.29 NA

Table 3.7.3: Completion Rates (Senior Secondary) Session 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

Public 57.85 63.23 78.09 45.07 NA

Private 76.87 86.56 88.39 89.51 NA

NA

Adequacy and Sustainability of Current Spending 3.8 Comment on the adequacy and sustainability of current public spending on education. Are the basic inputs – learning materials, classroom, and classroom furniture, schools maintenance etc – being adequately funded? How would education for all (EFA) goals, the MDG goals for education and other government initiatives, affect costs and total resources required to implement these goals?

The observation made under Section 3.6 on the overall performance of the education system in the State remains relevant here as well. In the absence data relating to the actual resource costs of

41-03211-30D

22

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

education inputs it is not clear how the above type of assessment can be realistically or meaningfully made.

4.0

SYNTHESIS/CONCLUSION

This study has analyzed an array of data relating to education in Anambra State. In the process issues concerning accessibility, equity and efficiency were addressed. Though regional data for comparative purposes are not available the State appears to be well endowed with public and private schools at primary, secondary and tertiary levels and the spread of these schools between the urban and rural areas is fairly even.

Unit costs of education across all levels in the state differ significantly. Primary and secondary levels unit costs were highest in 2007 as was also the case at the tertiary level. The tertiary level unit cost has been significantly higher than those of other levels from the state government’s expenditure though this is by far lower than the federal government’s unit cost on tertiary institutions in the state.

To the extent that these unit cost figures reflect government’s commitment to each pupil, it can be rightly said that the incumbent administration in the State has made remarkable efforts to improve the situation of education in the state within the short period it has been in place. However, serious challenges still remain.

The obsolete system of budgeting still being used would make it difficult even for the government itself to make a realistic value for money audit of the impact of its expenditure efforts. And even within the existing budgeting system the prevailing pattern of expenditure which accords very low priority to precisely those input items best designed to maximize the quality of teaching output, is not helpful. Also not helpful is the habit of releasing capital votes rather late in the fiscal year. Average teacher/pupil ratio in the state, though low, was higher in public primary schools as compared to private primary schools. By contrast, at the secondary level, the teacher/student ratio was higher in public than in private schools.

41-03211-30D

23

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

Completion rates at the primary school level for both boys and girls were more than 97 percent but at the senior secondary level this rate was quite low, given high drop-out rates. Similarly, repetition rates were minimal at the primary level as compared to the secondary level. In all, completion, repetition and drop-out rates at the secondary school level were skewed negatively against boys as compared to girls.

5.0

RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are made: •

Every effort should be made by ANSG to adopt at the earliest possible date the new and more comprehensive budgeting system prescribed under the NEEDS reforms.



Higher priority should be given to education inputs like Teaching/Learning Materials and Equipment, and Teacher-in-Service Programmes, to raise the quality of educational output in the state



The release of capital votes should be done in good time within the fiscal year to effect implementation of already identified projects and give way for new projects in the subsequent years.



There is need for significant improvement in teacher/pupil ratios in both public and private primary schools in the state. It should be noted that the federal and state targets for teacher/pupils were 1:30 by the end of 2007; but that of Anambra state is still up to 1:50 in public primary and more than 1:60 in private primary schools.



Enrolment and completion rates are still much better for girls than for boys especially at the senior secondary level. Policies that would boost boys’ enrolment and completion rates are necessary, so as to improve the overall literacy rate in the state.



The political leadership of ANSG needs to squarely address the adverse equity effects of various hidden fees, levies or illegal payments in the state’s education system. It is possible that the state’s education bureaucracy looks the other way in respect of such charges because they believe that the collections actually go to offset some transfers or subventions which are legitimately due to the schools but which are in fact not forthcoming to them for one reason or the other. To the extent that such is the case, the

41-03211-30D

24

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

situation needs to be remedied in the interest of the overall poverty reduction objective of the government.

ANNEXES Annex 1: Terms of Reference (TOR) SUPPORT TO REFORMING INSTITUTIONS PROGRAMME TERMS OF REFERENCE Activity 3.2.1.1D –Public Expenditure Review for the Education Sector in Anambra State.

1. BACKGROUND The Support to Reforming Institutions Programme (SRIP) aims at supporting the National Empowerment and Economic Development Strategy (NEEDS) launched on March 15, 2004 and its derived activities at the state and local government levels (SEEDS and LEEDS). In doing so, 41-03211-30D

25

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

the SRIP is geared to improving public service delivery. Such an outcome directly calls for a more efficient and more transparent budget management; the end-result of which must be reflected in a business climate more conducive to private productive investment and job creation and, subsequently, to a marked reduction of poverty in the affected Programme areas. SRIP is managed by a Project Management Unit (PMU) based in Abuja. State Technical Units (STUs) are directed and monitored by the PMU in their delivery of assistance to selected state and local government authorities and CSOs in Cross River, Osun, Jigawa, Anambra, Kano and Yobe. According to the Financing Agreement between the European Commission and the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Programme plans to achieve two results: (i)

transparent budgeting processes that take account of past experience, reflect the political priorities identified through political debate, and serve as a binding guide to their implementation, using the prudently estimated resources available; and

(ii)

citizens who through Civil Society Organisations can participate effectively in the budget process, highlighting cases of corruption and business crime.

PER for Education focuses on the efficiency and equity effects of public expenditure on the education sector. Education is vital to human development and access to educational opportunities can contribute significantly to poverty reduction. Investment in human capital has been recognized as a prerequisite for growth and development. The rationale for government intervention in Education has been based on market failure, public good and externallycorrecting policies and ignorance. Standard economic literature is replete with arguments on these justifications for government intervention in Education. For example, it has been argued that parents are likely to under-invest in Education of their children because of their ignorance about the social and private benefits of education. Though education benefits the individual, it also has significant social benefits – an educated workforce and increased productivity. Many studies demonstrate that better-educated women contribute to the welfare of the next generation by reducing infant and child mortality, lowering fertility and improving the nutritional status of women. Education has large positive spillover (externality) effects, produces greater social benefits than private benefits or possesses significant interpersonal utility values. This means government intervention can raise welfare. A fundamental responsibility of the state is ensuring equity and handling redistribution. The government can play an important role in promoting equitable access to educational opportunities and promote poverty reduction. Public policy, including educational finance policy can maximize or minimize sub-group differences in educational access and achievement. Nonetheless, government intervention in the education sector has not always been efficient and equitable. There is a wide gulf of difference between schools in urban and rural areas, classrooms are dilapidated, schools and colleges are ill-equipped, teacher absenteeism is widespread, funds budgeted for education and allocated scarcely reach the target beneficiaries,

41-03211-30D

26

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

teachers are badly deployed and supervised. There is prevalence of bribes and hidden fees or illegal payments that affect access, grades or graduation. There is the dubious practice of private lessons by the students’ teachers or by teachers within the student’s schools. Bribes parental ‘gifts’ and private lessons penalize the poor. Access rates, repetition rates and completion rates have not been satisfactory aside from the low quality of outputs. This activity is a socio-economic analysis of public expenditure on education. Its main focus is on the efficiency and equity effects of public expenditure on the education sector. It will review sources of finance (public, private e.t.c) that support the activities in the sector, and their sustainability, the management of these finances and the spending patterns. It analyses the distribution of public expenditure among the different levels of the education system, between the urban and rural locations, the senatorial districts and attempts a peek into the overall systems performance. There will be an overview of how the education system is organized and the implications for equity, efficiency and earning outcomes. It will also discuss the link between government plans for the education sector and public expenditure. There will be a menu of short and medium term policy recommendation. DESCRIPTION OF ASSIGNMENT Government expenditure on education as a percentage of total budget expenditure has been declining. From nearly 22 percent in 2004; it fell to 14.2 percent in 2006. Yet, education remains a key sector in the state SEEDS Document with government policy focused on the revival of the sector. The state faces numerous challenges in the achievement of the MDGs. This assignment concentrates on core PER question: Where does the money come from? Where does the money go? What does the money buy? And how could spending be improved? Specifically, the review addresses the following issues: Ø How much is spent on education and how much does the government spend? Ø How does government finance? Ø What does government finance? Ø Does public spending protect equity? Ø Are public resources being used efficiently and effectively? Ø How much is enough? Is public spending adequate and sustainable?

2.1 Beneficiaries Anambra State Government and her citizens from improved education service delivery and efficient and effective public expenditure management of the education sector. 2.2 Global Objectives - To enhance the effectiveness of public spending in the education sector. - To improve service delivery through improved resource allocation and institutional reforms. - To improve pro-poor education finance and policy and facilitate access and better learning outcomes for the poor. 2.3

Specific Objectives

41-03211-30D

27

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

In analyzing each of the issues under-listed below, the question: compared with what? becomes relevant as terms such as ‘high’ ‘low’, ‘adequate’, ‘poor’ e.t.c are relative concepts. Hence, the analysis, where necessary should be done relative to regional neighboring states. • •









• •

2.4

Review the education system in terms of levels and grades and the typical ages for each grade and level. Describe the transition of pathways from one level to another. Review the public, private and other sources (donor) of educational finance and the relative importance of each source to total expenditure on education; the proportion of total expenditure on education to total budgeted and actual expenditure. In short, review the structure and composition of education finance in Anambra State and in particular the source of public funding, and the extent of donor financial support. How are the responsibilities for education financing distributed or shared among different levels of government (federal, state and local)? Review the role of local government in education finance, as well as the existence of subventions and grants from federal/state in funding education. Analyse the share of total expenditure among the different levels of education – how much of the total goes to each level of education and the public expenditure ratios; also analyse the funding of inputs into the education system – allocation between the recurrent and capital expenditures and allocations within the recurrent expenditures – staff and non-staff costs. In short, review the functional and economic allocations of public expenditure in education. Examine the equity effects of education finance and public policy in terms of school enrolment rates, completion rates and learning achievements by various subgroups, by gender, by location (urban, rural and senatorial district). How does the state tackle differences in educational system (e.g hidden fees, PTA dues, or illegal payments) which impose extra financial burden on households and affect access and completion rates and penalize the poor. Assess the performance of the education system in terms of efficient and effective use of inputs; and would budget reallocation improve the efficiency of the system? Attempt a comparative unit cost analysis for different levels of education, between rural and urban schools e.t.c using standard benchmarks assess the utilization of teaching and non-teaching staff vis-à-vis students, the distribution and deployment of teachers and the average teacher cost per year relative to the average wage in the civil service, the average/student classroom ratio by level of education for rural and urban schools, and the distribution of student/school ratio. Review the repetition and dropout rates at different levels of the education system. Also review students’ outcome in terms of enrolment rates, completion rates and learning outcomes and transition rates between levels of education. Comment on the adequacy and sustainability of current public spending on education. Are the basic inputs – learning materials, classroom, and classroom furniture, schools maintenance e.t.c – being adequately funded? How would education for all (EFA) goals, the MDG goals for education and other government initiatives, affect costs and total resources required to implement these goals? Requested Services

41-03211-30D

28

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

• •

• • • • •

Conduct an in-depth review of public expenditure on Education in Anambra State, focusing on the socio-economic dimensions – efficiency and equity issues sources of finance and expenditure patterns. Discuss and agree with the STU the outline and methodology of the PER and the schedule of meetings and workshops with the state officials. It is important that the state officials from the Ministry of Education, Economic Planning, Finance and Budget are involved or in fact drive the process. Hold inception workshop with state officials who will form the core PER team, to explain the objective of the exercise, the data requirements and the possible policy and programme improvements from the exercise. Brief the STU at periodic intervals on the progress of the assignment with an interim report submitted half-way into the assignment. At the end of the assignment, hold consultative workshop with the state government officials to disseminate the findings and recommendations. Produce workshop reports according to SRIP template. The reports must reflect an accurate and comprehensive record of the workshop proceedings. Produce a comprehensive report of the PER of the Education system in Anambra state.

2.5 Experts Profile A highly competent economist with vast experience in conducting PER at the Federal and/or State level. Must have undertaken at least one PER (Sectoral or global) in the last 3 years, for a donor agency. Experience with State’s budget and expenditure data is vital in addition to having a ‘feel’ for data as well as a ‘nose’ for important data inconsistencies. A good track record of getting the job done on time is essential.

2.6

Expected Output

o Workshop reports. o A comprehensive report of PER of Anambra State Education System. 3

• •

LOCATION AND DURATION Anambra State. 25 days.

Working language – English Language. Work Plan (No. of Days) Consultant

Travel

1

1

41-03211-30D

Preparation Inception PER Interim Consultative Final total Workshop Report forum Report 1 2 12 5 1 3 25

29

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

4 REPORTING To conform with SRIP Reporting Template. Submit interim reports five days after the completion of the assignment and final report 3 days after the consultative forum. Report in A4 size to be submitted in three hard copies (mailed to the STU address) and a soft copy e-mailed to the STU via [email protected]

Annex 2: Persons Met S/No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Names Mrs. Carol Nwankwo Carol Ikeanyionwu Dr. Laz Okafor Prince Emmanuel Odunze Mr. Nnadi Chika Dr. Mrs. Ngozi Ezeike Obiechina, F. O. Adinuba, P. C. Eboh, F. U. Mba, D. I. Okeke, E. U. Felicia Obioma Ononye Obinabo, V. N. Anene, Ralph Azi, B. U

Departments Accounts, Ministry of Education PRS, Ministry of Education HTVD, Ministry of Education Schools, Ministry of Education ESD, Ministry of Education EDC, Ministry of Education State Education Commission State Education Commission State Education Commission ASUBEB ASUBEB ASUBEB ASUBEB Budget & Finance Panning & Development

APPENDICES Appendix A3.2.1: Source of Funding for Anambra State University, Uli Table A3.2.1: Sources of Funding for Anambra State University, Uli 2003/2004 197,263,367 54,670,000

2004/2005 82,157,237 112,307,100

State Government Students' Fee Donor Agencies Private Sector 13,726,130 33,093,075 Other Sources (ETF) 13,500,000 14,750,000 Total 279,159,497 242,307,412 Percentage Funding for Anambra State University, Uli State Government 70.66 33.91 Students' Fee 19.58 46.35 Donor Agencies 0.00 0.00 Private Sector 4.92 13.66

41-03211-30D

2005/2006 175,779,657 209,695,500

2006/2007 250,611,150 352,746,205

2007/2008 774,928,620. 413,862,019

60,263,095 450,000,000 895,738,252

71,923,308 45,000,000 720,280,663

179,105,622 58,500,000 1,426,396,261

19.62 23.41 0.00 6.73

34.79 48.97 0.00 9.99

54.33 29.01 0.00 12.56

30

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

Other Sources (ETF)

4.84

6.09

50.24

6.25

4.10

Appendix A3.2.2: Anambra State College of Education (Funding and Sources) Table A3.2.2: Anambra State College of Education (Funding and Sources) State Proposed Budget State Actual Budget Teachers Salaries & Allowances Non-Teaching Salaries & Allowances

2003 30,000,000

2004 50,000,000

2005 10,000,000

2006 10,000,000

2007 10,000,000

NIL 195,861,65 2 97,933,826

NIL 218,308,52 3 109,154,26 2

NIL 243,712,658

NIL 251,577,585

NIL 261,696,490

121,856,329

125,788,793

130,848,245

Appendix A3.5.1: State-Wide Distribution of Primary Schools Table A3.5.1: State-Wide Distribution of Primary Schools LGAs AGUATA AHAMELUM ANAMBRA EAST ANAMBRA WEST ANAOCHA AWKA NORTH AWKA SOUTH DUNUKOFIA EKWUSIGO IDEMILI NORTH IDEMILI SOUTH IHIALA NJIKOKA NNEWI NORTH NNEWI SOUTH ONITSHA NORTH ONITSHA SOUTH ORUMBA NORTH ORUMBA SOUTH OGBARU OYI TOTAL

Public 74 49 53 50 47 38 42 27 36 70 44 100 38 45 61 26 43 51 40 60 44 1,038

Private 109 0 5 0 17 2 31 9 23 76 23 26 17 57 26 53 34 14 13 54 3 592

Location Urban Rural 83 0 1 0 1 0 49 2 13 72 0 23 8 82 11 79 77 0 0 61 0 562

100 49 57 50 63 40 24 34 46 74 67 103 47 20 76 0 0 65 53 53 47 1,068

Total 183 49 58 50 64 40 73 36 59 146 67 126 55 102 87 79 77 65 53 114 47 1,630

No of Pupils (Private)

3,569 0 813 0 1,039 123 1,893 550 2,331 6,564 1,987 3,030 1,038 6,641 3,030 6,806 4,366 459 426 6,806 259 51,730

Appendix A3.5.2: State-Wide Distribution of JS Schools

41-03211-30D

31

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

No of Pupils (Public) 44,392 13,025 32,031 24,117 33,234 18,235 24,138 18,311 30,132 71,137 24,126 42,011 25,250 28,081 27,122 42,116 39,665 23,731 17,932 32,906 17,832 629,524

Grand Total

47,961 13,025 32,844 24,117 34,273 18,358 26,031 18,861 32,463 77,701 26,113 45,041 26,288 34,722 30,152 48,922 44,031 24,190 18,358 39,712 18,091 681,254

Average per School

262 266 566 482 536 459 357 524 550 532 390 357 478 340 347 619 572 372 346 348 385 418

Table A3.5.2: State-Wide Distribution of JS Schools LGAs

AGUATA AHAMELUM ANAMBRA EAST ANAMBRA WEST ANAOCHA AWKA NORTH AWKA SOUTH DUNUKOFIA EKWUSIGO IDEMILI NORTH IDEMILI SOUTH IHIALA NJIKOKA NNEWI NORTH NNEWI SOUTH ONITSHA NORTH ONITSHA SOUTH ORUMBA NORTH ORUMBA SOUTH OGBARU OYI TOTAL

Public

Location Urban Rural

Private

Total

No of students (Private)

No of students (Public)

Average per school

19 7 9

40 4 7

31 1 2

28 10 14

59 11 16

NA NA NA

3,792 2,895 2,870

64 263 179

7

5

1

11

12

NA

2,635

220

13 7 17 8 8 14

3 6 13 3 18 32

2 2 25 0 10 26

14 11 5 11 16 20

16 13 30 11 26 46

NA NA NA NA NA NA

4,036 5,317 8,432 4,262 5,023 5,436

252 409 281 387 193 118

11

15

0

26

26

NA

3,756

144

17 12 9 10 16

35 8 46 30 22

14 3 55 8 38

38 17 0 32 0

52 20 55 40 38

NA NA NA NA NA

6,513 6,503 8,126 5,034 18,216

125 325 148 126 479

5

20

25

0

25

NA

6,970

279

13

10

0

23

23

NA

3,582

156

11

12

4

19

23

NA

2,504

109

8 8 229

24 6 359

16 2 265

16 12 323

32 14 588

NA NA NA

6,478 4,239 116,619

202 303 4,764

Appendix A3.5.3: Total Enrolments - Primary schools in Anambra State Table A3.5.3: Total Enrolments - Primary schools in Anambra State Session 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

Public 373,076 502,049 551,760 612,030 629,524

Private

ECCD

49,268 52,260 52,227 51,194 51,822

51,234 68,425 72,094 78,432 82,721

Total

Growth Rate 473,578 622,734 676,081 741,656 764,067

Appendix A3.5.4: Total Enrolments - JS schools in Anambra State

41-03211-30D

32

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

31.50 8.57 9.70 3.02

Table A3.5.4: Total Enrolments - JS schools in Anambra State Session

Public

2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

97,214 107,334 116,619

Private

Others

Total

19,876 22,322 22,359 21,485 22,587

Growth Rate 19,876 22,322 119,573 128,819 139,206

12.31 0.17 7.73 8.06

Appendix A3.5.1: Figure of Total enrolment by Gender (Primary Schools) Figure A3.5.1: Total enrolment by Gender (Primary Schools) % Girls

Total Enrolm e nt by Ge nder (Prim ary Schools )

% B o ys

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2003/ 2004

2004/ 2005

2005/ 2006

2006/2007

2007/2008

Appendix A3.5.2: Figure of Total Number of secondary Schools in Anambra State Figure A3.5.2: Total Number of secondary Schools in Anambra State

41-03211-30D

33

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

Boys

Total Number of Secondary Schools in Anambra State

Girls 160

M ixed

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2 00 3/ 20 04

2 00 4/ 20 05

20 05 / 20 06

20 06 / 2 00 7

20 07/ 2 00 8

Appendix A3.5.5: Total Enrolments by Gender - JS schools in Anambra State Table A3.5.5: Total Enrolments by Gender - JS schools in Anambra State Session 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

Boys

Girls 8,778 10,043 41,771 49,974 52,791

Total 11,098 12,279 77,802 78,845 86,415

19,876 22,322 119,573 128,819 139,206

% Boys 44.16 44.99 34.93 38.79 37.92

% Girls 55.84 55.01 65.07 61.21 62.08

Appendix A3.5.6: Total Enrolment2 - Institutions of Higher learning in Anambra State Table A3.5.6: Total Enrolment3 - Institutions of Higher learning in Anambra State University Session 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

Private NA NA NA 300 967

Public

Polytechnic

College of Education

Private

Public

2,674 5,746 7,928 13,162 9,112

200 300 450 1389 1450

Total 1920 1200 1291 1913 1885

Appendix A3.5.7: Total Enrollment by Gender (Colleges of Education) Table A3.5.7: Total Enrollment by Gender (Colleges of Education) 2 3

Total enrolment here excludes Madonna University Total enrolment here excludes Madonna University

41-03211-30D

34

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

4,794 7,246 9,669 16,764 13,414

Type 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

Boys

Girls

Total

200 159 160 216 215

1720 1041 1131 1697 1670

1920 1200 1291 1913 1885

Appendix A3.5.7: Total Enrollment – Polytechnics in Anambra State Table A3.5.7: Total Enrollment – Polytechnics in Anambra State Boys

Girls

2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

80 100 150 450 600

Total 120 200 300 939 850

200 300 450 1389 1450

Appendix A3.6.1: Distribution of Academic and Non-Academic Staff in Primary Schools Table A3.6.1: Distribution of Academic and Non-Academic Staff in Primary Schools Public Category Number of Teaching Staff Laboratory Personnel Secretarial/Office Personnel Cleaners/Gardeners/Jani tors Nurses/Matrons Drivers Security Personnel Others Total Number of Pupils Teacher/Pupils ratio

41-03211-30D

Male

Female

Private

Total

Male

Female

Grand Total

Total

Male

Female

Total

953

11,752

12,705

1,900

8,131

10,031

2,853

19,883

22,736

0 0

0 0

0 0

13 36

13 245

26 281

13 36

13 245

26 281

0

0

0

32

424

456

32

424

456

0 0 1,13 1 0

0 0 0

0 0 1,131

0 118 176

89 0 94

89 118 270

0 118 1,307

89 0 94

89 118 1,401

0

0 629,524

122

188

310 681,254 68

122

188

310 1,310,778 58

50

35

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

Appendix A3.6.2: Distribution of Academic and Non-Academic Staff in Secondary Schools Table A3.6.2: Distribution of Academic and Non-Academic Staff in Secondary Schools Public Category Number of Teaching Staff Laboratory Personnel Secretarial/Office Personnel Cleaners/Gardeners/Janitors Nurses/Matrons Drivers Security Personnel Others Total Number of Students

Male 1,526 17 54 19 0 18 104 97

Female 4,210 119 114 49 36 0 11 392

Teacher/Students Ratio

Private

Total 5,736 136 168 68 36 18 115 489 163,767 39

Male 1,835 110 77 8 0 89 398 22

Female 2,910 147 261 125 91 0 21 258

Grand Total

Total 4,745 257 338 133 91 89 419 280 84,709 24

Male 3,361 127 131 27 0 107 502 119

Female 7,120 266 375 174 127 0 32 650

Total 10,481 393 506 201 127 107 534 769 248,476 32

Appendix A3.6.3: Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff in Anambra State (College of Education) Table A3.6.3: Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff in Anambra State (College of Education) Category Academic Staff Non-Academic Staff (Senior) Non-Academic Staff (Junior) Total number of Students Students/Teacher ratio

Appendix A3.6.4: (Polytechnic)

Teaching

Male 163 130 98

and

Non-Teaching

Female 135 142 161

Staff

in

Total 298 272 259 5089 17

Anambra

Table A3.6.4: Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff in Anambra State (Polytechnic Category Academic Staff Non-Academic Staff (Senior) Others Grand Total Total number of Students Students/Teacher ratio

41-03211-30D

Male

Female 20 6 4 30

36

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

Total 6 11 1 18

26 17 5 48 2289 88

State

Appendix A3.6.5: Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff in Anambra State (University Private) Table A3.6.5: Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff in Anambra State (University - Private) Category Academic Staff Non-Academic Staff (Senior) Grand Total Total number of Students Students/Teacher ratio

Male

Female 40 35 75

Total 15 40 55

55 75 130 1267 23

Appendix A3.6.6: Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff in Anambra State University Table A3.6.6: Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff in Anambra State University Category Academic Staff Non-Academic Staff (Senior) Other Grand Total

Male

Female 225 291 98 614

Total

86 320 8 414

311 611 106 1028

Appendix A3.7.1: Completion Rates (Primary) by School type and Gender Table A3.7.1: Completion Rates (Primary) by School type and Gender Session/School Type 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

BOYS Private 98.97 98.99 99.23 100.00

Public 99.47 95.52 98.16 96.36

GIRLS Private 98.97 98.99 99.23 100.00

Public 91.47 99.94 94.36 99.98

TOTAL Private 98.97 98.99 99.23 100.00

Public 94.52 97.81 99.76 98.16

Appendix A3.7.2: Completion Rates (JSS) by school type and Gender Table A3.7.2: Completion Rates (JSS) by school type and Gender Session/School Type 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

41-03211-30D

BOYS Private 97.67 98.79 99.87 99.88 NA

Public NA NA 69.27 78.46 NA

GIRLS Private 97.67 98.79 99.87 99.88 NA

Public NA NA 77.78 83.03 NA

37

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

TOTAL Private 97.67 98.79 99.87 99.88 NA

Public NA NA 73.52 80.74 NA

Appendix A3.7.3: Completion Rates in Senior Secondary by Gender and School Type Table A3.7.3: Completion Rates in Senior Secondary by Gender and School Type Session/School Type 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

Public Boys 54.79 50.63 49.77 50.61 NA

Private Boys 58.31 81.99 78.72 84.35 NA

Girls 51.89 49.43 51.02 59.86 NA

Girls 79.63 96.80 91.99 99.81 NA

TOTAL Boys 54.79 50.63 49.77 50.61 NA

Girls 51.89 49.43 51.02 59.86 NA

Appendix A3.7.4: Repetition - Primary school in Anambra State Table A3.7.4: Repetition - Primary school in Anambra State Session/School Type 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

BOYS Private

Public 1.61 0.13 0.22 0.17

NA NA NA NA

GIRLS Private NA NA NA NA

Public 1.36 0.16 0.18 0.13

ECCD (Public) Boys Girls 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01

TOTAL Private NA NA NA NA

Public 0.74 0.08 0.11 0.08

Appendix A3.7.5: Transition Rate from Primary to Junior Secondary in Anambra State Table A3.7.5: Transition Rate from Primary to Junior Secondary in Anambra State Session/School Type 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

BOYS Private

Public 96.48 99.78 99.72 99.82

NA NA NA NA

GIRLS Private NA NA NA NA

Public 97.64 99.82 99.78 99.85

TOTAL Private NA NA NA NA

Public 98.52 99.88 99.85 99.91

Appendix A3.7.6: Transition Rate from JSS to SS Secondary in Anambra State Table A3.7.6: Transition Rate from JSS to SS Secondary in Anambra State Session/School Type 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

41-03211-30D

Public Boys 43.3 NA

78.3 73.3 62.6

Private Boys

Girls 53 NA

82.2 93.4 70.4

NA

NA

TOTAL Boys 43.3

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Girls

NA

38

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

78.3 73.3 62.6

Girls 53 NA

82.2 93.4 70.4

Appendix A3.7.7: Repetition - JS School in Anambra State Table A3.7.7: Repetition - JS School in Anambra State Session/School Type 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

BOYS Private

GIRLS Private

Public

TOTAL Private

Public

Public

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.26 0.12

NA NA

0.13 0.08

NA NA

0.18 0.10

NA NA

Appendix A3.7.8: Drop-out - Primary school in Anambra State Table A3.7.8: Drop-out - Primary school in Anambra State Session/School Type 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

BOYS Private NA NA NA NA

GIRLS Private

Public 1.91 0.08 0.06 0.01

NA NA NA NA

Public 1.01 0.01 0.04 0.02

ECCD (Public) Private Public 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01

TOTAL Private

Public 0.73 0.04 0.04 0.01

NA NA NA NA

Appendix A3.7.9: Drop-out - JS School in Anambra State Table A3.7.9: Drop-out - JS School in Anambra State Session/School Type 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

BOYS Private

GIRLS Private

Public

Public

TOTAL Private

Public

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA NA

0.04 0.03

0.02 0.00

NA NA

NA NA

0.02 0.01

Appendix A3.7.10: Drop-Out - SS school in Anambra State Table A3.7.10: Drop-Out - SS school in Anambra State Session/School Type 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

41-03211-30D

Public Boys 45.21 49.37 50.23 49.39 46.38

Girls 48.11 50.57 48.98 40.14 36.03

Private Boys

Girls

39

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

TOTAL Boys 45.21 49.37 50.23 49.39 46.38

Girls 48.11 50.57 48.98 40.14 36.03

Appendix A3.7.1: Figure for Drop-Out Rates in Anambra State (Senior Secondary Schools) Figure A3.7.1: Drop-Out Rates in Anambra State (Senior Secondary Schools) Drop-Out Rate s in Anam bra Se nior Se condary Schools

Boys Girls

60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00 2003/ 2004

2004/ 2005

2005/ 2006

2006/ 2007

2007/ 2008

Appendix A3.8.1: Sources of Funding for Anambra State University, Uli Table A3.8.1: Sources of Funding for Anambra State University, Uli 2003/2004 2004/2005 State Government 197,263,367 82,157,237 Students' Fee 54,670,000 112,307,100 Donor Agencies Private Sector 13,726,130 33,093,075 Other Sources (ETF) 13,500,000 14,750,000 279,159,497 242,307,412 Total Percentage Funding for Anambra State University, Uli State Government 70.66 33.91 Students' Fee 19.58 46.35 Donor Agencies 0.00 0.00 Private Sector 4.92 13.66 Other Sources (ETF) 4.84 6.09

2005/2006 175,779,657 209,695,500

2006/2007 250,611,150 352,746,205

2007/2008 774,928,620. 413,862,019

60,263,095 450,000,000

71,923,308 45,000,000

179,105,622 58,500,000

895,738,252

720,280,663

1,426,396,261

19.62 23.41 0.00 6.73 50.24

34.79 48.97 0.00 9.99 6.25

54.33 29.01 0.00 12.56 4.10

Appendix A3.8.2: Total Enrolment - Institutions of Higher learning in Anambra State Table A3.8.2: Total Enrolment - Institutions of Higher learning in Anambra State Universities

41-03211-30D

Polytechnic

College of

40

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

Grand Total

Education Sessions 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

Private4 NA NA NA 300 967

Public 2,674 5,746 7,928 13,162 9,112

Private

Public 200 300 450 1,389 1,450

1,920 1,200 1,291 1,913 1,885

4,794 7,246 9,669 16,764 13,414

Appendix A3.8.3: Total Number of Institutions of Higher learning in Anambra State Table A3.8.3: Total Number of Institutions of Higher learning in Anambra State Sessions 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008

4

Universities 4 4 5 5 5

Polytechnic 2 2 2 2 2

College of Education 2 2 2 2 2

The total for private universities excludes Madonna University

41-03211-30D

41

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.softwarelabs.com

Grand Total 8 8 9 9 9

Recommend Documents
CARMEL CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAM APPPLICATION. Carmel High School 30 Fair St. Carmel, NY 10512 (845)225-8441 ...

Kia Optima SXL. Low Mileage,ABS, Climate Control, Nav, Leather. $23,995. K5176A. 2014. Honda Odyssey EX. ABS Brakes, Dual Airbags, Child Safety.

satisfying quite general conditions, it does not hold for all (PCA PER) models. This is can be ..... see that if |a|↓, then |a| is of one of the forms rio, K, Kx, S, Sx, .

Pride of America. Beef Stroganoff. Dad's Backyard Grill of Burgers, Chicken or Hot. Dogs -. Mom's Meatloaf. OKC Chicken Fried Steak. Roasted Rotisserie or ...

Council bands Cost per year Cost per month Cost per week. Band A. £ 8.00. 66p. 15 p. Band B. £ 9.33. 78p. 18p. Band C. £10.67. 89p. 20p. Band D. £12.00.

a under the age of 18 years, .... AE Lost. Weds. Sept. Los Fanshs. With Aust. 94-235. Cocker ses t tary hite, lord tion Pi, Btry ... Time he golden sun Tay bron th.

11days per month. 10 days per month. 9 days per month. 8 days per month. 7 days per month. 6 days per month. 5 days per month. 4 days per month. 3 days per ...

see field mapping table. Existing clients. Changes to client data for existing active Clients in BQ should be reflected in. Intervals (except for name changes).

term unemployment is access to good jobs, along with the ability to ... Best of all, their average starting wages are four ... Scholas Women In Tech graduate and.

Aug 31, 2012 - AISD sought review before the administrative appeals panel, see id. ... judicial review . . . of a final decision of the appeals panel . . . is liable for ...