-
Survey Of Different Sources Of Income For Development Of Secondary Schools
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 5]
Page 2 of 5
-
-
-
Most of these problems arose from inadequate funding of the sector (Nwagwu, 2002).
Fashina
(2005) observe that in 1994, the funding formula was revised by the
government so that the state would share 50% equally, thus educationally
disadvantaged states 25%, pupil enrolment 25% and population of the
states 10%. In 1999, the then government scrapped the National Primary
Education Fund (NPEF) and reconstituted it under another name (the
National Primary Education Commission). This action was taken in
recognition of the states and local government’s constitutional
responsibility for financing and managing primary education. Alternative
source of funding explored by government is the Education Tax Fund
(ETF) established in 1995. It ensured that companies with more than 100
employees contribute 2% of their pretax earnings to the fund. Primary
education receives 40% of this fund; secondary schools education
receives 10% and higher education 50%. Primary education has in the past
also received from Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) for capital expenditure
and provision of instructional materials. While in higher institutions,
gifts, endowment funds, consultancy services farms, satellite campuses,
pre-degrees are other alternative funding sources. Despite all the
alternatives, the infrastructures, and facilities remain inadequate for
coping with a system that is growing at a very rapid pace. The annual
population growth rate was 3.3% (C.B.N, 2003). Due to poor financing,
the quality of education offered is affected by poor attendance and
inadequate preparation by teachers at all levels. The morale of teachers
is low due to basic condition of service and low salaries.
Furthermore,
physical facilities need to be upgraded and resources such as
libraries, modern communication and information technology equipment
have to be provided (Anozie, 2000).
The quest for meeting these basic
education needs has been the cause of unending crisis between
government trade union such as Nigerian union of teachers (NUT),
Academic staff union of universities (ASUU),
Non-Academic staff union
(NASU). In the same direction, Ogbonnaya (2005) contends that education
sector competes with the industrial, health, agriculture, communication
sectors of the economy and as such demands effective funding from
government. The same is true of other sectors. Thus, the funds made
available for education are never enough as these sectors must receive
attention as well. In view of the above, it may be observed that formal
education is at cross roads in the country, especially when other
sectors of the economy are competing keenly for attention as much as
education does in the national budgetary allocation.
In the same
vein, Okunamiri (2007) observed that, at independence, government
funding of formal education increased tremendously especially in the
seventies following the increase in revenue from federation account due
to the oil boom which made it possible for the introduction of Universal
Primary
Education (UPE) nationwide, in September 1976. Within same period,
students in tertiary institutions enjoyed free tuition, scholarship loan
and bursaries. The country began to set for herself priorities and
these priorities were pursued and financed towards the actualization of
objectives of education in national development. All these efforts were
geared towards actualizing the federal government’s policy as spelt out
in the national policy on Education, that government ultimate objectives
is to make education free at all levels, that the financing of
education is a joint responsibility of the federal, state and local
governments and that in this connection, government welcomes and
encourages private agencies in helping to finance education.
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 5]
Page 2 of 5
-
