This project reviews and assesses the basic education system in Nigeria in the context of Universal Basic Education (UBE) as designed in the UBE Act 2004 with a focus on effectiveness, accountability and equity in basic education financing. The project utilizes desk review of data and literature, interviews with officials at federal, state and local government levels, and structured questionnaires at school level. The report provides an assessment of the effectiveness, accountability, and equity of basic education in Nigeria. The central objective of the UBE Act (2004) is to provide institutional and resource frameworks to promote equity in educational outcomes across the country. Central to this objective are effective mechanisms for financing basic education that ensure availability of resources at the time and place where they are needed, and accountability in the use of resources that hinges on clarity of resource flows, capacity for monitoring and evaluation and oversight by all stakeholders in basic education, including the parents. The dominance of federal government as the source of funds pivots the success of UBE on factors beyond domestic effort, given the dominance of petrodollars in revenues of the federal and state governments and volatility of the market for crude petroleum. The approach is rather ineffective, as allocations from the federal government, plus matching monies raised by the states are insufficient to meet the needs of basic education, creating persistent resource gaps in the funding of basic education infrastructure. In response, schools in some states have introduced different types of levies with the consent of parents and in contravention of the provisions of the UBE Act.

Over the past years, basic education in Nigeria has experienced mixed performance. On the positive side, school enrolment has increased and gender disparity in primary education has been reduced significantly in line with MDGs targets. However, educational outcomes remain weak on various indicators of quality and equity. For example, quality of education in Nigeria was ranked 124th out of 144 countries on the Global Competitiveness Index in 2015. Also, van Fleet et al. (2012) finds that 58.3 percent of primary school children in Nigeria are not meeting the expected levels of literacy and numeracy skills. Specifically, 65.7 percent of the students cannot read, while 51 percent lack basic arithmetic skill.

While several factors accounted for this dismal performance, inadequate finance is no doubt paramount. Between 2010 and 2014, the expenditure on education only accounted for 0.5 per cent of the national GDP and 8.8 percent of the federal government spending (Nwoko, 2015). This is grossly below both UNESCO’s recommendation of between 4 to 6 percent share of GDP and the Dakar Education for All EFA’s recommendation of 20 percent of national budget. Apparently, while all levels of education in Nigeria remain underfunded, basic education level remains more underfunded. While there is no specific estimate of the overall financing gap in Basic Education for Nigeria, the EFA Global Monitoring Report for 2014 shows that Nigeria needs to spend an additional US$1.6 billion annually on primary school teachers’ salaries alone to achieve Universal Primary Education by 20201. Data from Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN, 2015) shows that while general government expenditure (federal, state and local) on non-basic education increased by NGN194.7 billion between 2008 and 2012, universal basic education (UBE) funding increased by a modest NGN19.1 billion.

The deficiencies in financing are reflected in the persistent supply-side constraints in Nigeria‘s Education sector. In basic education, inadequate funding is evident in the number of OOSC and shortages in school infrastructure. Nigeria presently has the highest levels of OOSC (8.7 million) in the World (See Nwoko, 2015). Similarly, estimates on classroom/facilities at the primary and junior secondary level points to a shortfall of around 60 percent and 67 percent respectively (Digest of Education Statistics, Nigeria, 2010). Given these and other apparent challenges that constrain outcomes at the school level, it becomes imperative for policymakers to design strategies towards mobilizing more resources.

Recent achievements of robust economic growth accompanied by increasing rates of unemployment present an uncharted paradigm in the history of the Nigerian economy. Despite economic growth averaging 7 percent during 2004-2012, unemployment rose from 13.4 percent to 27.4 percent. In particular, youth unemployment rose from 29 percent to over 40 percent.

The experience becomes more paradoxical when the drivers of recent growth are brought under consideration. Over the period, non-oil sectors that are considered natural job creators – agriculture, commerce and distribution, and communications sectors – account for more than 80 percent of economic growth. While the increasing unemployment rate is in part due to expansion of the labor force due to influx of new entrants, it is more significantly a result of failure of economic growth to create substantial employment. At other times, especially during the financial crisis, economic growth was accompanied by net job destruction.

This paradox puts a dent to credibility of the “growth will create labour demand” hypothesis that has been the key doctrine of the Bretton Woods institution for decades, and has led to suggestions for rethinking labor market strategies. Realization of the need for growth to create employment and reduce poverty had given birth to the increasingly popular qualification of economic growth in terms of “inclusiveness” and “pro-poorness” in development circles. Indeed, there is a renewed emphasis on promoting growth in sectors with high rates of labor absorption, with the idea that expansion of those sectors will result in increased demand for labour, and as a consequence, increased employment rates.

Despite the efforts made by the Nigerian government, policy makers and other stakeholder to increase children vaccination against infections, measles vaccination coverage remains very low. While this problem is more profound in the northern part of Nigeria, its present form in Borno State even requires urgent attention. This study is an attempt to expose the issue. It conducts a policy simulation exercise on two measles immunization programs for children of age 9-23 months free immunization against measles with media awareness campaign (PolicyA) and free immunization against measles with house to house campaign (Policy B) to boost children measles immunization coverage. The study estimates the relative cost and the effectiveness measure such as the health benefits morbidity avoided and mortality averted. In what follows, it compares the cost per child covered and the cost-effectiveness ratios of the policy alternatives. The cost per child indicates that policy A has a lower cost and lower level of coverage, while policy B has a higher cost and a higher level of immunization coverage. In terms of cost of treating measles and the value of statistical life (VSL), the results of the cost effectiveness analysis show that both policies are efficient. However, policy A has a lower cost effectiveness ratio than policy B.