Community Participation And The Financing Of Infrastructural Development Of Basic Schools In North-West Zone.

Being a Paper Presented at the 35^th Annual  National Conference organized by Nigerian  Association for Educational Administration and Planning (NAEAP), on the theme Exploring Changes in the Strategies for Financing Education for National Development in Nigeria, Held at Kano between 11^th to 14^th  October, 2016

By

¹Bakwai, B.
²Oduwaiye, R. O.  (Ph.D)

&

³Muhammad, U.

^{1 & 3} Department of Educational Foundations,
Faculty of Education and Extension Services,
Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto.
Email: bakwaibala@gmail.com
Phone: 08035448236

²  Department of Educational Management,
University of Ilorin
Email: oduwaiyerhoda@yahoo.co.uk
Phone: 08033906694

 Abstract

This study was designed to examine community participation in financing infrastructural development in North-west Zone basic schools, Nigeria. The study used descriptive survey research design. The population for this study comprised all the 21,230 UBE schools and their SBMCs. Simple random sampling technique was used to select four states (Jigawa, Katsina, Sokoto and Zamfara States). A sample of 370 basic schools were selected from the four states using proportionate, stratified, systematic and random sampling techniques at different stages. Validated Community Participation Questionnaire (CPQ) was used in this study. Pilot test was conducted and test-retest method was used to determine the reliability indices of .79 for the CPQ. The descriptive statistics of frequency count, tables, percentages were used to analyze the research questions. The level of community participation in North-west Zone basic schools was high. It was also found that cash donation, labour supply and material supply were the areas of community contribution in the financing of the infrastructural projects. The federal and state government should create a platform to develop a whole-community economic empowerment programmes to boost the economic power of local people, and also that the school administrators should continue to strive hard and maximize their efforts in trying to make their SBMC more organized, enlighten its members and mobilize them to continue with the good work for the benefit of their children

Introduction

Western education was introduced in Nigeria by the Christian Missionary in the year 1842 (Fafunwa, 1974; Nwagwu, 2002). The funding and other aspects of schools management were later taken over by government. For effective management of these schools, School boards, Education Committees, Education Authorities and Education Commissions were all introduced by government at different points in time (Adesina & Ogunsaju, 1984; Adesina, 1990; Alani, 2002; Nwagwu, 2002). These all-together have led the course unto which schools were able to record a great achievement in the past (Adeyemi, 2011). The essence of all the boards, committees, authorities and commissions in Nigeria education systems was to promote financial accountability and improve local community participation in school funding among others (Adesina, 1990; Nwagwu, 2002).

Community participation had received increased attention in international and national policy in recent years. The forms of community support needed for school development recently became more formalized in SBMC policy, with new forms of community participation emerging (Rusell, 2009; Aref & Redzuan, 2009; Mnaranara, 2010). Community participation had been used as panacea to solve complex problems related to school and education in general.  It is not something that suddenly appears in education delivery. In fact, not all communities were passive in the education of their children. Until in the last century, communities were the most responsible in managing schools. Even presently, there are places in Nigeria where communities organize themselves to provide and manage schools for their children. Although the participation of communities in school administration has not been extended to a wider practice (Tshabalala, 2006).

Since government’s efforts in education alone could not be enough in meeting the needs and aspirations of Nigeria’s educational system in terms of infrastructure and other school development projects and programmes, it was the responsibility of SBMCs to ensure full participation of all stakeholders in school development and in any decision concerning their schools.  As studies and experiences strongly indicated (Cuyvers, Weerd, Dupont, Mols, & Nuytten, 2011; Branham, 2004), achievement was greater in above-standard schools than in substandard schools, it was therefore the obligation of any reasonable community to improve infrastructure in its schools. It was necessary for SBMCs to develop necessary strategies for promoting this community participation in all aspects of school processes. According to Tshabalala (2006) community participation is one of the key factors to determine school effectiveness. It helps increase the accountability of schools by reducing teacher absenteeism, increasing teacher effort and these generally seem to contribute to improved students’ conduct. It also helps develop true democratic processes in school development process.

Aluede (2006) warned that large number of primary schools suffered an immense deprivation of infrastructural facilities that support teaching and learning. In a study conducted by Adepoju and Fabiyi (2007), it revealed the following: 12% of pupils sat on the floor; 38% of the classrooms have had no ceilings; while 87% of the classrooms were overcrowded. With poor funding, the few classrooms built on some of the primary school grounds decay faster because of poor maintenance (Lunenburg, 2010).

Statement of the problem

            When it comes to issues of education and schools funding, community participation is not something new or strange. Most communities were actively involved in supporting the education of their children financially. The literature reviewed have indicated that the past two decades have witnessed an upsurge in the concern for community participation educational organizations. The subsequent reaction in academic circles has been a tremendous increase in the research and literature in community participation in financing schools and their programmes. The review has also revealed numerous published studies on infrastructural development in and outside Nigeria.

            Although some of these researches have looked at community participation in relation to school development and effectiveness, it appears that only scanty studies investigated in community participation in relation to financing infrastructural development particularly in Nigeria.  It was observed that the level of infrastructural development in basic school was very low in the North-west Zone. Hence, this study examined community participation in relation to financing infrastructural development in North-west zone, Nigeria.

Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this study is to examine community participation in financing infrastructural projects in the North-west Zone basic schools, Nigeria.

Specifically, the objectives of this study are to:

1. examine the level of community contribution in financing infrastructural project in North-west Zone basic schools.


2. identify the types of project financed through community contribution in the North-west Zone basic schools.


3. Find out the estimated cost of project financed through community contribution in the North-west zone basic schools.

Research Questions

The following are the research questions to be answered in this study:

1. What is the level of community contribution in financing infrastructural project in North-west Zone basic schools?


2. What types of infrastructural projects were financed through community contribution in the North-west Zone basic schools?


3. What is the estimated cost of infrastructural project financed through community contribution in the North-west zone basic schools?

Literature Review

The culture, language, tradition, law, geography, class, and race, which a particular people shares define their community.  As Russell (2009) argues, some communities are homogeneous while others are heterogeneous; and some united while others conflictive.  Some communities are governed and managed by leaders chosen democratically who act relatively autonomously from other levels of government, and some are governed by leaders imposed from above and represent central authorities (Uemura, 1999).   Although it is assumed that communities to be homogenous, harmonious and static, whose resources can collectively be mobilized for a perceived collective community good, Dunne, Akyeampong and Humphreys (2007) believed that they are multi-layered, with their own hierarchies, determined to an extent by age, gender, ethnicity, caste, function within the community etc., and dynamic, as power relations are played out on a daily basis in accommodation and resistance. The composition of communities too is always changing, with people dying or being born into them and migrating in and out of them (Chen, 2011).

The term “participation” can be interpreted in various ways, depending on the context. Njunwa (2010) understand participation to be involvement of members through the contribution (or extraction) of money, materials, and labor;

Since each group plays a different role in contributing to children’s education, there must be efforts to make a bridge between them in order to maximize the contributions (Dunne et al, 2007)..  Education takes place most efficiently and effectively when these different groups of people collaborate.  According to Abbas (2014), it is important to establish and continuously attempt to develop partnerships between schools, parents, and communities (Abbas, 2014). Community participation is not something new in the education delivery.  It did not suddenly appear as panacea to solve complex problems related to education.  In fact, not all communities have played a passive role in financing children’s education.  For instance, Tshabalala (2006) stresses that until the middle of the last century, responsibility for financing schools rested with the community.  Although there still are places where communities organize themselves to finance and operate schools for their children today, community participation in education hasn’t been fully recognized nor extended systematically to a wider practice.

The way participation is defined largely depends upon the context and background in which participation is applied (Laah, Adefila & Yusuf, 2013). Aref and Redzuan (2009) asserted that participation requires the voluntary and democratic involvement of people in contributing to the development effort; sharing equitably in the benefits derived there from and decision making in respect of setting goals, formulating policies and planning and implanting economic and social development programmes.

Community participation occurs when a community organizes itself and takes full responsibility for managing its problems (Theron, 2005). UN (2005) viewed community participation as the creation of opportunities to enable all members of a community to actively contribute to and influence the development process and to share equitably in the fruits of development. People’s participation is essential in order to establish economic and political relationship within the wider society and it is not just a matter of involvement in project activities but rather the process by which rural people are able to organize themselves, ability to identify their own needs, share in design, implement, and evaluate participatory action (Kumar, 2002:24; Laah et al 2013).

Community participation has received increased attention in international and national policy in recent years. It is considered important as an end in itself (as a democratic right), as well as a means to the achievement of school development and education in general. The interest in community participation has occurred simultaneously with an intensified focus on achieving gender parity in education, and community participation may be seen as one of the means to achieve this goal (Kambuga, 2013). One of the potential outcomes of community involvement as an end in itself creation of self satisfaction in members when the feel fully responsible of their own education system. As a means to an end, community participation in education is seen as a way to increase resources, improve financial accountability of schools to the community they serve, ensure a more cost-effective use of financial resources and, importantly, be responsive to local needs (Mnaranara, 2010; Kambuga, 2013).

The following according to Njunwa (2010) are some of the importance of community participation in school development processes:-  Firstly, the community participation empowers community to make decision that directly affects their life. The community participation helps to achieve greater citizen’s satisfaction with their communities and development at large. Therefore, the active community participation is a key for building an empowered and responsible community. Secondly, the community participation creates the sense of ownership of the development process to the community itself (Bray, 2003b). Development processes become integral part of the community and helps the community to believe that they own their development process. The top down approach to development process do not create the sense of ownership of the development to the community. Thirdly, the community participation ensures sustainable development and continuity of the development processes

One of the major factors to ensure sustainability of programmes is the availability of funds, whether from governments, private institution or donor organization (Wedam, Quansah & Debrah, 2015). In this regard, community participation in education cannot ensure the sustainability of school by itself since communities often times have to rely on external funding to keep the programme sustained. However, involving community is one of the ways to ensure that the benefits brought by development programmes will be maintained after the external interventions are stopped. Thus, sustainability is dependent on the degree of self-reliance developed in target communities and on the social and political commitment in the wider society to development programmes that support the continuation of newly self-reliance communities (Wedam, Quansah & Debrah, 2015). Ayeni and Adelabu (2012) reaffirm that the effects of deteriorating condition and poor maintenance of school infrastructure are threats to school management, curriculum delivery and students’ academic performance. According to Olagboye (2004) effective management of infrastructure is the prime responsibility of the school administrator and other stakeholders.  

Methodology

The research design for this study was descriptive survey.    The population of this study consisted of all the 21230UBE schools and their SBMC in North-west Zone, Nigeria. There are seven states in the zone with total number of 18719  primary schools and 1913 junior secondary schools under UBE (UBEC, 2013b). The North-west zone of Nigeria comprised of Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto and Zamfara States.

In the first stage, simple random sampling technique was used to select four states (which was made up of Jigawa, Katsina, Sokoto and Zamfara State) from the zone. Consequently, multi stage sampling technique was used to arrive at selecting 370 basic schools across the selected state. In this research, a validated questionnaire with a validity index of 0.79, titled “Community Participation Questionnaire” (CPQ) was used in collecting the data. The data collected for this study was analyzed through Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) using descriptive statistics of frequency count, tables, and percentages.

Data Presentation and Analysis

In this section, the data was presented in tables and analyzed using mean scores.

Research Question One

RQ1: What is the level of community contribution in financing infrastructural project in North-west Zone basic schools?

In this section, the level of community contribution in financing infrastructural projects was presented and analyzed. Table 1 presents data on the level of community contribution in financing projects.

Table 1: Level of Community contribution in financing Infrastructural Projects.

Value	Value Label	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
0	No Response	64	2.9	2.9	2.9
1	Very low	84	3.8	3.8	6.7
2	Low	133	6.0	6.0	12.7
3	Moderate	557	25.1	25.1	38.0
4	High	1220	55.0	55.0	92.6
5	Very High	162	7.3	7.3	100.0
	Total	2220	100	100

Mean = 4.5

The results in Table 1 show that 25.1% of the respondents believed that the level of community contribution in financing infrastructural projects in basic schools was moderate, 55.0% believed it was high, whereas 7.3% viewed it to be very high. By considering the mean under Table 1, it can be concluded that the level of community contribution in financing infrastructural projects in North-west Zone basic school was very high. This is possible according to Kambuga (2013) because community participation has received increased attention in international and national policy in recent years. It is considered important as an end in itself (as a democratic right), as well as a means to the achievement of sustainable development and poverty alleviation. The interest in community involvement has occurred simultaneously with an intensified focus on achieving gender parity in education, and community participation may be seen as one of the means to achieve this goal.

https://www.amsoshi.com/2017/10/17/where-lies-the-problem/

Research Question Two

RQ2: What types of infrastructural projects were financed through community contribution in the North-west Zone basic schools?

At this stage, the study provided evidences that community really participated in the financing of infrastructural projects in the zone basic schools.

 

Table 2: Project Financed through Community Participation in North-west Zone Basic School between 2014 and Early 2016

S/No	Project financed	Freq. of Responses	Percentage
1.	Classroom(s) Construction	282	3.2
2.	Toilet(s) Construction	656	7.4
3.	Office(s) Construction	66	0.7
4.	Classroom(s) Renovation	792	8.9
5.	Toilet(s) Renovation	956	10.7
6.	Office(s) Renovation	110	1.2
7.	Seats Construction	328	3.7
8.	Doors/Windows Repair	1294	14.5
9.	Seats Repair	1574	17.7
10.	Water Source Development	1822	20.4
11.	Road Development	156	1.8
12.	Electricity Supply/Improvement	262	2.9
13.	Development of Sport Field/Equipment	95	1.1
14.	Development of Religious Place	89	1.0
15.	Development of E-learning Centre	215	2.4
16.	Development of Laboratory	62	0.7
17.	Development of Library	157	1.8
	Total	8916	100.0

Table 2 shows the type of infrastructural projects financed in these schools through community efforts. The issue of financed project was considered not only in the light of project completion but also on the progress made of the projects. So many projects were financed through community participation in the North-west Zone basic schools. In Table 2, responses on item 10 indicated that 20.4% of the projects financed in the zone basic schools were development of water sources. This category include drilling boreholes, building wells, laying pipes for pipe borne water, repairing boreholes, repairing wells and plumbing works. The responses show that 17.7% of the financed projects was students’ seats repair.

Doors and windows repair constituted 14.5% of the financed projects; toilet(s) renovation was 10.7%, classroom(s) renovation 8.9%, toilet(s) construction 7.4%, and classroom construction 3.2%. Other projects financed were projects in relation to electricity supply and repairs (2.9%), development of e-learning centre (2.4%), library development (1.8%), and road development (1.8%) also. Some projects such as office(s) renovation, development of sport fields, development of religious places, and office(s) construction were given less priority as indicated by the proportions of their responses (less than 1.5%  each), more especially development of laboratory and office(s) construction (0.7% each).  The issue of project financing was considered not only in the light of project completion but also on the progress made. So many projects were financed in the North-west Zone basic schools. The type of projects financed were placed under 17 categories as shown in Table 2. In this table, responses on item 10 indicated that 20.4% of the projects financed in the zone basic schools were development of water sources. This category include drilling boreholes, building wells, laying pipes for pipe borne water, repairing boreholes, repairing wells and plumbing works on water system.

 

Research Question Three

RQ3: What is the estimated cost of project financed through community contribution in the North-west zone basic schools, Nigeria?

Table 3: Estimated Cost of Projects Financed in North-west Zone Basic Schools between 2014 and Early 2016

Value	Value Label	Frequency	Percent	Valid Percent	Cumulative Percent
0	No Response	498	22.4	-	-
1	Below N200,000	1107	49.9	64.3	64.3
2	N200,001 to N400,000	420	18.9	24.4	88.7
3	N400,001 to N600,000	135	6.1	7.8	96.5
4	N600,001 to N800,000	7	.3	.4	96.9
5	N800,001 to N1,000,000	48	2.2	2.8	99.7
6	N1,000,001 and Above	5	.2	.3	100.0
	Total	1722	77.6	100.0	-
Total		2220	100.0	-	-

The data in Table 3 explains that 1722 respondents out of 2220 responded to the item in the questionnaire. In this, it was shown that 1107 (49.9%) respondents claim that through community participation, less than N200,000:00K was spent on project financing. Under value 2 in Table 3, about 135 (6.1%) respondents believe that between N400,001 to N600,000 was contributed by the community for the projects financing. Only seven respondents claimed that community members contributed between N600,001 to N800,000 for projects financing. Another group of 48 respondents believed that project worth N800,001 to N1,000,000 was financed in their schools through community participation. Only 5 (0.2%) respondents show under value 6 that projects worth N1,000,000 or over was financed in their school.

These projects were estimated by the respondents to cost about N342,229,200: 00K (Three hundred and fourty two million, two hundred and twenty nine thousand, two hundred Naira, zero Kobo only). By average, each school was assumed to have spent N154,714:83K (One hundred and fifty two thousand, seven hundred and fourteen Naira, eighty three Kobo only). This finding is in line with that of Wedam, Quansah & Debrah (2015) that local communities have been initiating educational infrastructure for a very long time now. The main idea behind that initiative was primarily to provide school infrastructure where there was none or to increase the number of educational infrastructure so as to solve the problem of overcrowding in the limited number of schools already available. They also found that where schools have been provided by the government or church groups, communities have provided supplementary infrastructure such as kitchens, toilets and urinary pits among others.

Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations

This section provides summary, draw conclusion and offer recommendations for this study.

Summary of Findings

In this study the following were found:

1. The level of community contribution in North-west Zone basic schools was high.


2. The projects financed through community contributions in North-west Zone basic schools were mainly door/windows repair, seats repair and water source development.


3. Community contribution in executing projects in North-west Zone basic schools was estimated at average to be worth N157,714: 83K per school.

Conclusion

From the results of this study, it was concluded that:

1. The level of community contributions in financing infrastructural projects in North-west Zone basic schools, which although the respondents believed were high, was not enough to take care of the level of decay and depreciation of infrastructure in the North-west Zone basic schools.


2. Although the respondents also believed that the communities were participating in financing basic school infrastructural projects, from the findings of this study, what communities were contributing in financing infrastructural projects in the basic schools were only appreciated because much have not been done before.


3. Communities in the North-west Zone were still reluctant to financing basic schools infrastructure.

Recommendations

Based on the results obtained in this study, the following recommendations were made:

1. The Federal and State governments should create a platform for a whole community economic empowerment programmes to boost the economic status of local people. This will improve their financial status and encourage their willingness in financing infrastructural projects in the basic schools.


2. Basic schools, through their SBMCS, should continue to mobilize members of their community using of relevant strategies. This will help encourage them to willingly participate in financing infrastructural projects in basic schools.

 

References

Abbass, I.M. (2014). Community participation in education: challenges and prospects in Nigeria’s democracy. European Scientific Journal, 8(5).

Adepoju, A. & Fabiyi, A. (2007). Universal basic education in Nigeria: Challenges and prospects. Retrieved July 10, 2013 from <http:/ /uaps2007.princeton.edu/download. aspx? submissionId=70830>

Adesina, S. (1990). Educational management. Enugu: Fourth Dimension  Publishers.

Adesina, S. & Ogunsaju, S. (1984). Secondary schools in Nigeria. Ile-Ife:  University of Ife Press.

Adeyemi, M. (2011). Communities role in universal basic education: partnership policy on facilities provisions in Nigerian primary schools.  Olabisi Onabanjo University, Nigeria.

Alani, R. (2002). Planning for universal basic education in Nigeria. Paper presented at conference organized by the National Institute for Educational Planning and Administration, Ondo May 30-31.

Aluede, R. A. (2006). Universal basic education in Nigeria: Matters arising. Journal of Human Ecology, 20(2), 97-101.

Aref, F. and Redzuan, M. (2009), Assessing the level of community participation as a component of community capacity building for tourism development. Journal of  scientific research. 28(3),443-450, available on http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm.

Ayeni, A. J. & Adelabu, M. A. (2012). Improving learning infrastructure and environment for sustainable quality assurance practice in secondary schools in Ondo State, South-West, Nigeria. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 1(1), 61-68

Bray, M. (2003). Community initiatives in education: goals, dimensions and linkages School Processes, Local Governance and Community Participation with governments. Compare, 33(1), 31-45.

Chen, D. (2011). School-based management, school decision-making and education outcomes in Indonesian primary schools. Policy Research Working Paper Series 5809. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Dunne, M., Akyeampong, K., & Humphreys, S. (2007). School processes, local governance and community participation: understanding access. CREATE, Research Monograph, No.6 London: University of London. http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/1836/1/PTA6.pdf

Fafunwa, B. (1974). New Perspectives in African Education. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan Education Ltd.

Kambuga, Y. (2013). The role of community participation in the ongoing construction of ward based secondary schools:  lessons of Tanzania. International Journal of Education and Research, 1 (7). ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print), ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online). Retrieved from http://www.ijern.com

Kumar, S. (2002), Methods for community participation. A complete guide for practitioners. London: ITDG Publishers.

Laah, E. D., Adefila, J. O., & Yusuf, R. O. (2013). Community participation in sustainable rural infrastructural development in Riyom area, Plateau state of Nigeria. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development , 4(19). ISSN 2222-1700 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2855 (Online). www.iiste.org

Lawal, A. A. (2014). Community participation, taechers’ job performance and school effectiveness in Kwara State secondary school, Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D thesis submitted to the Department of Efucational Management, Faculty of Education, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

Lunenburg, F. C. (2010). The decision making process. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, (27).

Mnaranara, T. L. (2010). Importance of community participation in ongoing construction of  primary schools. Unpublished Master Thesis in Development Management. University  of Agder, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences Centre for Development  Studies.

Njunwa, K. M. (2010). Community participation as a tool for development: Local community's participation in primary education development in Morogoro, Tanzania -A case of Kilakala and Mindu Primary Schools. Unpublished master thesis, University of Agder, Tanzania.

Nwagwu, N. (2002). From UPE to UBE: Some basic planning considerations for effectiveness. Lead paper presented at a conference organized by the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, Ondo, May 30-31.

Olagboye, A. A. (2004). Introduction to educational administration planning and supervision. Ikeja: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Ltd.

Russell, K. A. (2009). Community participation in schools in developing nation: Characteristics, methods and outcomes. A qualifying paper. Retrieved from http://www.

Tshabalala, E. L. (2006), The role of community participation in the integrated development plan of Govan Mbeki Municipality. Department of social work and criminology: University of Pretoria. Available (Online) http://www.up.ac.za /dspace/bitstream/2263/12247/1/.pdf

Theron, F. (2005), Public participation as a micro-level development strategy. In Davids, F. Theron and K. J. Maphunye (Eds.). Participatory development in South Africa: A development management perspective. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

UBEC (2013). Executive summary. Report of the community entry exercise for the establishment of school based management committee in 36 states and FCT 28th july-3rd august, 2013. Retrieved on 21^st January, 2013 from http://www.ubeconline.com/   

Uemura, M. (1999). Community Participation in Education: What do we know?  HDNED, The World Bank.

United Nations (UN) (2005), A division for sustainable development. Indicators for sustainable development: Review and assessment, background paper, New York.

Wedam, E., Quansah, J. Y. D., & Debrah, I. A. (2015). Community participation in educational infrastructure development and management in Ghana. Education, 5(5), 129-141.