Thursday, 28th March 2024
To guardian.ng
Search
Breaking News:

‘States not doing enough to ensure effective UBE delivery’

By ENO-ABASI SUNDAY
07 October 2015   |   9:42 pm
TO what extent is lack of political will by state governors killing primary education in the country? Let me begin by stating very emphatically that states, by the provisions of the 1999 constitution have responsibility to provide for, administer and implement basic education delivery programmes. Thus, every praise or blame for the success or failure of same should be squarely placed on the state apparatus. But you must also realise that the Federal Government is permitted to provide interventions as assistance to states in critical areas.
Dr. Dikko Suleiman

Dr. Dikko Suleiman

Executive Secretary of the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC), Dr. Dikko Suleiman, in this interaction with ENO-ABASI SUNDAY, admits that lack of political will is at the root of the apparent dismal performance of some states in Universal Basic Education (UBE) delivery. He also stressed the need to amend certain aspects of the UBEC Act to ensure compliance by erring states, just as he informed of a series of sanctions being considered by the commission.

TO what extent is lack of political will by state governors killing primary education in the country?
Let me begin by stating very emphatically that states, by the provisions of the 1999 constitution have responsibility to provide for, administer and implement basic education delivery programmes. Thus, every praise or blame for the success or failure of same should be squarely placed on the state apparatus. But you must also realise that the Federal Government is permitted to provide interventions as assistance to states in critical areas.

Therefore, to answer your question in this respect, lack of political will is the foundation of the apparent dismal performance of some states in Universal Basic Education (UBE) delivery. Among other things, this plays out very significantly in the low priority that some states accord basic education delivery and translates to insufficient funding, administrative and political interference, leading to substandard facilities, low personnel capacity and refusal to adopt best practices in the day-to-day implementation of UBE programme. Once the authorities do not acknowledge and recognise the prime importance of basic education as the most fundamental input to socio-economic development, then it is going to be pretty hard for such state to put in place the right mechanism; political will, resources, personnel, and administrative procedures that will ensure growth, viability and sustainability of best practices in UBE delivery.

What other factors, in your considered opinion, are responsible for governors not coming forward with their counterpart funding?
I think to a very large extent, the core of the failure of some states to access the Federal Government/UBE matching grants is hinged primarily on the lack of political will. If there are other reasons or excuses that individual states could tender as reasons for not accessing the fund, it would in some way or the other, be traced to lack of acknowledgement of the fundamental nature of basic education to socio-economic development and the absence of political determination to mobilise appropriate resources to ensure unhindered access to educational opportunities by school-aged children.

Recently, Kogi State said it had concluded plans to release N2.1b counterpart fund to enable it access its three-year backlog of grants. How far have they gone in actualizing this?
Kogi State has accessed UBE matching grant up to the 2012. However, the board has an outstanding three years (2013 – 2015) matching grant as at 22nd September, 2015 to access, which is subject to their fulfilling the conditions for accessing FGN-UBE Intervention Fund.

Between 2007 and 2010, only one state failed to access the funds each year. The number of states went up to eight in 2011 and nine in 2012. By 2013, the figure had risen to 19 and the number of states, unable to access the funds, as at July 2015 rose to 30. What is responsible for this rising spate of non-compliance?
UBEC may not be in the best place to explain why states have not fully accessed the UBE matching grants. You may also wish to note that the fund for previous years would have to be fully utilised before subsequent years’ fund are disbursed accordingly. It is expected that the number of states that have not accessed the fund for very recent years will be much higher than those for previous years.

On a general note, the reasons for the rising spate of un-accessed UBE matching grant include; non- provision of the 50 per cent state counterpart fund owing to the low level of budgetary allocation to basic education at state and local government levels; non–development and submission of action plans by states for subsisting funds and slow pace of projects’ execution by SUBEBs
Though UBEC considers that low level of political will and commitment by the affected states as the major reason for their inability to access these funds, it would be ideal for you to interact with such states in case they have very specific reasons for not being able to access and utilise the funds.

Why is it taking the commission so long to think up sanctions to apply to defaulting state governments?
Well this is not correct. I want to state categorically that the funding pattern, utilisation of the FGN/UBE funds is in line with the UBE Act, and as approved by the Federal Executive Council. When UBEC realised that a number of states were not placing the expected premium on UBE delivery, through their low investment in UBE and eventual inability to access the fund, UBEC recommended to the immediate past administration a series of sanctions to the be meted out to the erring states. The approval of these recommendations was still being awaited until the expiration of the tenure of that administration.

At the inception of the current administration, UBE has also submitted recommendations in this respect in line with current realities and is awaiting further directives from the government. I am sure that the government is studying the various recommendations with a view to taking steps that would serve the interest of its renewed drive towards improving UBE delivery at federal and state levels.

To salvage primary education, will having the UBE Act amended to empower the National Assembly to deduct such counterpart funds at source -from the allocations of the various state governments- not be a good idea?
Without a doubt, the current situation suggests the need to amend certain aspects of the UBE Act. Various suggestions have been made to the national assembly and the Executive arm of government not only by UBEC but other concerned stakeholders in this respect. I am sure that the various recommendations in respect of the amendment of the UBE law would be taken into consideration and addressed in due course.

Where would primary education be if all states accessed funds allocated to them as at when due?
It is good for us to envisage a situation where all states can access funds allocated to them as and when due as a first step to improving the resource base for UBE delivery. This would be a very welcome development. Further to this, it would be ideal if states muster the required discipline and put in place appropriate structures, personnel and mechanisms for utilising accessed funds and optimising its use for the benefit of the basic education sub-sector.

It is only through this that we would achieve our collective dreams and aspiration for quality UBE delivery across the nooks and crannies of the country.

0 Comments