School-Based Manament Committee Strategies And Infrastructural Development In Zamfara State Basic Schools

Amsoshi


 

By


 


BAKWAI, Bala


Department of Educational Foundations,


Faculty of Education and Extension Services,


Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto.


Email Address: bakwaibala@gmail.com & bala.bakwai@udusok.edu.ng


Phone Numbers: 08035448236, 08054821103 & 08092443502


 


 


YUSUF, Aishatu


Department of Educational Foundations,


Faculty of Education and Extension Services,


Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto.


Phone: 08036251063


 


Being a Paper Presented at the 2nd National Conference organized by Faculty of education and Extension Services, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto, Held at Sokoto between 9th to th  October, 2015


 



Abstract


This study examined School-Based Management Committee (SBMC) strategies in relation to infrastructural development in Zamfara state basic schools. The study clarifies the concepts of School-Based Management Committee (SBMC) and Universal Basic Education (UBE). This study adopted descriptive survey design of correlational type. The population for the study comprises of all the UBE schools and their SBMC members in Zamfara state, Nigeria. In selecting the sample, multistage cluster sampling procedure was used. A total of 36 basic schools and a total of 252 SBMC members were randomly selected. A validated self designed questionnaire tagged School-Based Management and Infrastructural Development Questionnaire (SBMCIDQ) was used which has a reliability index of 0.81. The research question was analysed using table and frequency count, while the hypotheses was analysed using Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (PPMCC) at 0.05 level of significance. The study found that there is inadequacy of infrastructure in Zamfara state basic schools. And that there was a significantly high relationship between SBMC advocacy strategies and infrastructural development in Zamfara state basic schools. It was also found that there is a significant relationship between SBMC resource mobilization strategies and infrastructural development in Zamfara state basic schools. The study recommended that old students’ associations, philanthropists, communities-based organizations and well-meaning individuals in the society should, in collaboration with the SBMCs, assist in the provision of infrastructure in their school for effective teaching and learning. And that SBMC should improve in their advocacy strategies so that community can be fully mobilized to come to the rescue of Zamfara state basic schools which were in serious need of infrastructure. It was recommended that SBMC at the state level should coordinate the financial activities of the SBMC at the community to ensure that they followed laid down rules and regulations governing financial management of a school.

 

 



INTRODUCTION


Nigeria is a signatory to various international agreements among which are the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Education for All (EFA) (UNICEF, 2012). For instance, the ‘Education for All (EFA)’ conference in Jomtien in 1990 triggered off considerable attention towards improvements in basic education in developing countries particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2000, the EFA conference in Dakar ushered in renewed momentum for, not only achieving universal access to education for all children including girls and the marginalized, but also the improvement of “all aspects of the quality of education and ensuring excellence of all so that recognized and measurable learning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracy and essential skills” (UNESCO, 2008 :8).

To achieve all these Rights, especially as they relate to EFA and MDGs, Nigeria had set up different structures and reform programmes. This lead to implementation of Universal Basic Education (UBE) programme in 1999. By 2006, School-Based Management Committees (SBMCs) were  established as mechanisms to provide platforms for communities and schools to work closely together to enrich school governance and promote improved basic schools management (UBE, 2011). Although the implementation of the UBE has though improved school enrolments but it brought about constraint on the existing infrastructure. Therefore, the establishment of SBMCs becomes necessary as UBE programme placed serious constraints on school existing facilities and infrastructure that demand effective school management.

The question is to what extent does SBMC contribute to infrastructural development and improved education delivery in the North West in general and Zamfara state in particular? Widespread systemic failure has resulted in basic schools that are unable to develop literate, numerate and self-reliant pupils (Pinnock, 2012).

The first problem SBMCs have in Nigeria was in the original SBMC guidelines that did not take care of the diversity in the country and the peculiarities of the different states. The success of SBMCs in Zamfara state may therefore depend largely, on the type of strategies adopted by the SBMCs to take care of peculiarity of the state (Pinnock, 2012; UNICEF, 2011). The problem of community involvement is an issue that demands the use of strategic management to be overcome (Alabi, 2003). This is because the SBMCs have been established as mechanisms to provide platforms for communities and schools to work together to enrich school governance and promote improved management by education authorities. To this end, the study examined whether SBMC resource mobilization strategies have any relationship with infrastructural development and students’ academic achievement in Zamfara state basic schools.

Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this study are to:

  1. assess the adequacy of school infrastructure in Zamfara state basic schools.

  2. examine the relationship between SBMC advocacy strategies and infrastructural development in Zamfara State basic schools.

  3. examine the existing relationship between SBMC resource control strategies and infrastructural development Zamfara State basic schools.


Research Questions


The following are a set of the research questions

  1. What is the level of adequacy of infrastructure in Zamfara state basic schools?

  2. What is the relationship between School-Based Management Committee advocacy strategies and infrastructural development in Zamfara State basic schools?

  3. What is the existing relationship between School-Based Management Committee resource control strategies and infrastructural development Zamfara State basic schools?


Research Hypotheses


In order to guide the conduct of this study, two research hypotheses were formulated, thus:

Ho1: There is no significant relationship between SBMC advocacy strategies and infrastructural development in in Zamfara state basic schools.

Ho2: There is no significant relationship between SBMC resource control strategies and infrastructural development in Zamfara state basic schools.

https://www.amsoshi.com/2017/11/04/personification-hausa-proverbs/

Conceptual Definitions


The Universal Basic Education (UBE) Programme is an educational programme aimed at eradicating illiteracy, ignorance and poverty (UBE, 2011). The implementation of the universal basic education scheme in Nigeria started with its official launch on 30th September, 1999 in Sokoto, Sokoto State. The vision of the Universal Basic Education (UBE) is that at the end of 9 years of continuous education, every child should have acquired appropriate and relevant skills and values and be employable in order to contribute his/her quota to national development (Tahir, 2005). The programme if properly implemented would help the country achieve the following: quality education, achievement of the MDGs, more jobs for Nigerian citizens, curbing of indiscipline and crime, reduction in child labour,  reduction of gender imbalance in educational attainment, reduction of the level of poverty, better health for the Nigerian child, motivating students to enrol in schools (Anaduaka & Okafor, 2013). The UBE act of 2004 covers;  (i) Early child care development and education (ECCDE) (ii) Six years of primary Education (iii) Three years of junior secondary education (Tahir, 2005).

School-based management on the other hand can be viewed conceptually as a formal alternation of governance structures, as a form of decentralization that identifies the individual school as the primary unit of improvement and relies on the redistribution of decision-making authority as the primary means through which improvement might be stimulated and sustained (Malen, Ogawa & Kranz, 1990; Akinsolu & Onibon, 2008). In Nigeria, the School-Based Management Committee was set up to increase citizen participation in basic schools management, as part of the efforts of school reform in Nigeria. Certainly, the intention behind school committee is to implement democratic participatory decision-making. The communities are to ensure quality both in educational inputs and outcomes and quality in learning environment for schools (Ogundele & Adelabu, 2009). The roles of SBMCs in Nigeria are defined as what will take care of numerous challenges been faced in the planning and implementation of UBE programmes in primary schools. Undoubtedly, the SBMC is relevant at this time of Nigerian educational development (UBE, 2011).

Theoretical Framework


Organization and administration of a school is the expression of educational theories. These theories such as school administration and management theories are the outshoot of the earlier theories of management (Oyedeji, 1998). There are several theories existing in educational management. In this research, the theories which would be considered most appropriate are  system theory and Chester Barnard Co-operative theory.

A system theory in educational administration sees school as system composed of interrelated parts (Peretomode, 1991). Schmuch (1977) has advanced earlier that schools are essentially living systems and that without people they are nothing but concrete and paper. As living systems, they are in constant process of interaction with their communities and other institutions (Lunenburg, 2010; Norlin, 2009). Considering the above ideas, a model of the school as a system is presented in figure 1.

https://www.amsoshi.com/2017/11/04/aspect-trust-hausa-folktales/

In this study, effort was being made to see how SBMCs would interact with school system particularly in mobilizing infrastructural inputs and participating in utilizing them through their strategies to ensure improved students’ academic achievement. This process demand the co-operation of several individuals hence the inclusion of co-operative theory in this study.

Chester Barnard Co-operative theory defines school organization as a system of co-operation whereby people work together for a common goal. School cannot succeed without the co-operation of several individuals within the community. School-based management committee tries to create mutual co-operation between school and community. It brings people and school together. School-based management therefore is co-operative in nature and man oriented. Barnard co-operative theory is essentially man oriented (Oyedeji, 1998:19).

Chester Barnard Co-operative theory and social system theory are somewhat related in the sense that they see school system as an interaction between several interest groups which need the co-operation of one another. For example, Getzel and Guba (1957) confirm in their model of social system that a social system is a system in which the components are people. Each individual’s behaviour within the social system is shaped by his psychological uniqueness and sociological attribute.

Infrastructural Development in Basic Schools

Government recognized the relevancy in availability of infrastructure and facilities to schools. Ivowu (1999 : 408) stated that “the implementation of blueprint for UBE programme noted that infrastructure have to be of the appropriate quantity, size and quality to meet the minimum standard for promoting any meaningful teaching and learning. The above statement showed that at the heart of school learning is the availability and adequacy of infrastructure.

Infrastructure are very important in teaching and learning processes. Effective management of infrastructure can yield good result. Schools that have well managed infrastructure will perform better than where the infrastructure are not available or where they are available but not properly managed (Onuoha – Chidiebere, 2011). Considering literature on infrastructural development, Wilson and Kelling (1982) assert that neglect and disrepair lead to a dysfunctional environment and to dysfunctional behavior as well.

Branham (2004) in a study reveals that schools with poor infrastructure, schools that rely on temporary buildings instead of permanent structures, and schools with inadequate custodial services provide an environment where students are less likely to attend school and are more likely to drop out. Schools that make facilities a second priority may very well experience performance inadequacies by their students. 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. They noted that good environment reinforces the efforts of the teacher by providing a good stimulus for effective teaching and learning to take place.

A study was conducted by Cuyvers, Weerd, Dupont, Mols and Nuytten (2011) which found that students who enjoy good infrastructure scored higher compared with students who have poor quality infrastructure. The study also found that only rarely do gender and grade affect results significantly. They gave empirical evidences (Engels, 2004; Leemans, 2008; Maeyer, Kavadias & coertjens, 2010; Maeyer & Rymenans, 2004) to support the importance of school infrastructure on the well-being of students in the Belgian region.

Dantani (1997) identified the following as school infrastructure: Classrooms, offices, auditorium, common room, cafeteria, toilets, technical workshop, science laboratories, stores, accommodation/staff quarters/students hostel, car parking lots, power supply plants, water supply system and storage, access road, security fence, libraries, laundries, shops, repose disposal, repair shops, first aid/health room, furniture.

Advocacy strategies


Advocacy means any activity intended to raise consciousness among decision makers and general community about an issue or a disadvantaged group, with a view to bringing about changes in policy and improvement in their situation. It is an interactive, proactive and consultative process.  In another tone, it could seen be a process made up of series of activities undertaken over a period of time aimed at challenging or changing a situation or issues (Black, 2002).  According to Akinsolu & Onibon (2008), the goals of advocacy include: challenging  existing situation; establishing a cause/issues; influencing relevant authority; sustaining pressure;  promoting desired group interest; bringing about change.

Advocacy is part of the overall SBMC programme (UBE, 2011). In advocacy, the SBMC should develop a community action based programme whereby community members will be sensitized on issue concerning the school, this has become necessary because parents and community members in particular have vital role to play in their children education. and such roles include:

  1. influencing educational policy makers on policies that will lead to eradication or minimizing school problem.

  2. sensitizing communities on the benefits of education.

  3. mobilizing communities against ignorance and poverty

  4. organising co-coordinating and funding activities to raise awareness on learners well being.


A successful advocacy strategy is one that is integrated, planned and influential (Black, 2002). Advocacy is usually effective if it is based on facts, not suppositions; draws upon practical experience and shows  legitimacy for the claims it makes; is carefully and strategically planned; it closely involves and honestly represents any group on whose behalf it is undertaken; and who are able to speak for themselves whenever possible (Akinsolu & Onibon 2008).

Resource Control Strategies


Resources are assets used to accomplish goals. According to Olson and Defrain (2000), resources are tools, talents and possessions used to create a life style, solve everyday problems and reach goals for better living. Resources are also means to work with to maintain control over one’s life as well as build one’s life style.

Financial resource control strategies are those strategies that is put in place to ensure that financial related assets or properties of an school are safeguarded, either from externals or staff and students of a school from any threat whatsoever, whether by theft, loss or misappropriation  (intentional or otherwise). Simply put, as those policies, procedures practices and school structures which are implemented to reduces financial risk to the school. They are developed to provide reasonable assurance to management that the school main objectives will be achieved and risk prevented, or detected and corrected (Jokomba, 2013).

From the above definition, the following are the objectives of any resource control system (Jokomba, 2013):

  1. Internal Accounting Control – Primarily directed to accounting operations such as the safeguarding of assets and the reliability of financial records and financial reporting.

  2. Operational Control- Directed at day-to-day operations, functions and activities to ensure that the operation is meeting the business objectives.

  3. Administrative Control- Concerned with operational efficiency in a functional area and adherence to management policies including operational controls. Described as supporting the operational controls specifically concerned with operating efficiency and adherence to organisational policy.


METHODOLOGY


This section provides information on the procedure adopted in carrying out this study. It focuses on research design, population of the study, sample and sampling techniques, research instrument, validity and reliability of the instrument, method of data collection, and method of data analysis.

Research Design


This study adopted descriptive survey design of correlational type. This design is appropriate since the study investigated relationship among the study variables.

Population, Sample and Sampling Techniques


The population for this study comprised of all the UBE schools and their SBMC members in Zamfara state, Nigeria. There are fourteen local governments in the state with total number of 1590 (one thousand five hundred and ninety) primary schools and 191 (one hundred and ninety one) junior secondary schools under UBE (UBE, 2013).

In selecting the sample, multistage cluster sampling procedure was used. Multistage cluster sampling involves the repetition of two basic steps: listing and sampling. Typically, at each stage, the clusters get progressively smaller in size; and at the last stage, element sampling is used (Henderson & Sundaresan, 1982; Nafiu, 2012). The number of stages that are used is often determined by the availability of sampling frames at different stages (Bennett, Woods, Liyanage & Smith, 1991; Agresti & Finlay, 2008; Nafiu, 2012; Awotunde & Ugudulunwa, 2004).

The state was divided into zones (Primary Sampling Units (PSU)). The zones are further sub-divided into local governments (Secondary Sampling Unit (SSU)) which are further divided into political wards (Tertiary Sampling Units (TSU)). This method is deemed necessary because the first step in good sample design is to ensure that the specification of the target population is as clear and complete as possible to ensure that all elements within the population are represented (Hashim, 2010). A cluster is selected on the basis of geographical distribution then on any other characteristics (Yusuf, 2003). If the clusters sampled are roughly the same size, the sample design may be considered to be an Equal Probability Selection Method (EPSM) sample design (Bennett, Woods, Liyanage & Smith, 1991; Olaofe, 2010).

Finally, four local governments (Secondary Sampling Unit (SSU)) one from each PSUs, 12 TSUs (political wards) were randomly selected. At the TSU (ward) level, one junior secondary school and two primary schools were randomly selected making a total of 36 basic schools. In each of the selected school, SBMC chairperson, secretary, teacher representative, women representative, community based organization representative and student representatives were selected making 288 SBMC members.

Research Instrument, its Validity and Reliability


In this research, a questionnaire tagged School-Based Management and Infrastructural Development Questionnaire (SBMCIDQ) was used to elicit information from the research respondents. The SBMCIDQ would be six-point Likert’s response format (1=Strongly Disagree  2=Moderately Disagree   3=Disagree   4=Agree   5=Moderately Agree  and   Strongly Agree=6).

The instrument was validated by experts in the field of educational management, test and measurement and research methodology, in the Faculty of Education, University of Ilorin. A pilot study was conducted using test-retest method. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was used to measure the two set of data and a reliability index of 0.81was determined.

Method of Data Analysis


The data collected for this study was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The research question was analysed using table and frequency count. While the hypotheses was analysed using Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (PPMCC) at 0.05 level of significance.

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

In this chapter, the data collected was presented and analyzed using tabular form. Inferential statistical technique multiple regression and Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was used to test the hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance.

Research Question


4.2    Research Question One

RQ:     What is the level of adequacy of infrastructure in Zamfara state basic schools?

 This research question was answered and presented in table 1

Table 1: Level of Adequacy of Infrastructure



































































S/NoInfrastructureNumber AvailableNumber RequiredPercentage ShortagePercentage Adequate
1.Classroom1232885743
2.School Fence11366931
3.Toilet951081288
4.Library18365050
5.Laboratory8367822
6.Teacher Accommodation561847030
7.Staffroom14748416

In table 1, item one indicated that the available classrooms in the 36 sampled schools were 123 and pupil/student enrolment was 11,197.  By implication, 164 more classrooms were needed to meet up with the required classrooms considering the National Policy on Education which stipulated that 40 pupils/students per class as it was in pupil-teacher ratio, one teacher to fourty pupils (1:40).  This result indicated that the available classrooms were not adequate to cope up with enrolment in Zamfara state basic schools. Therefore, the percentage shortage is 57% and the percentage adequate is 43%.  In terms of school fence, it is expected that each school should have a fence. Item two shows that only 11 out of the 36 sampled school have a fence. By implication, only 11 of sampled schools have fences meaning that they are only 31% adequate.

In item 3 result shows that only 95 out of the 108 required toilets were available. The pupils/students enrolment were 11,197. If this number is divided with the available Toilets it resulted to 118 pupils/students to one toilet. This indicated that toilet were not adequate in Zamfara state basic schools. It was noticed that these toilets belongs to basic schools in and around the state local government headquarters and some towns nearby. Most of the basic schools in remote villages do not have functional toilet facilities both students and teachers were defecating in nearby bushes.  Over the years, teachers and pupils in most of the schools in rural areas of Zamfara state have become accustomed to using the bush for defecating.

The report from item 4 indicated that in the 36 sample basic schools in Zamfara state only 18 basic schools have libraries. By that, another 18 more libraries were needed for libraries to be adequate in basic schools in the state. Therefore, the percentage shortage and the percentage adequate was 50% each.  Observation showed that only central basic schools in and around the state and local government headquarters have what could somewhat be called libraries.  Most of the basic schools in rural areas did not have libraries. This indeed resulted to inadequacy of libraries in Zamfara state basic schools.  In terms of laboratory, item 5 of table 1 shows that only 22% of the sampled schools were having what could also be somewhat referred to as laboratory. That is to say only 8 basic schools have laboratories making it up 78% inadequate.

Item 6 shows that in the sampled schools, more than 80% of the teachers were not accommodated by their schools. Item seven shows 84% shortage in the staff room used by the sampled schools. Only boarding provided accommodation to few teacher where the majority lived in their personal owned or rented houses. In the same table, item 7 shows that only 14 staffrooms were originally built for the purpose to be used as staffrooms. All other staffrooms were classrooms converted to be used as staffroom.

The finding in table 3 was in line with Aluede (2006) when he warned that large number of primary schools suffered an immense deprivation of infrastructure 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 no ceilings; while 87% of the classrooms were overcrowded. No wonder Alogba-Olukoya (2012) said at the 2012 world teachers’ day celebration that the poor state of infrastructure impacted negatively on the performance of students. This is dangerous because according to Adesina (2008, p.208) “a deplorable school environment offers little or no stimulus to learning”.

Considering literature on infrastructural development, Wilson and Kelling (1982) assert that neglect and disrepair lead to a dysfunctional environment and to dysfunctional behavior as well. He proposed that if a building had a broken window and the window was not replaced, all of the other windows would soon be broken. One broken window indicates that no one cares, so continuing the breakage will come at no cost. The schools should make sure that the infrastructural facilities are properly managed. This is because without effective and efficient management of these facilities, the objectives of education will not be achieved (Onuoha – Chidiebere, 2011). According to Olagboye (2004) effective management of infrastructure is the prime responsibility of the school administrator, SBMC and other stakeholders.

Hypothesis One


Ho1: There is no significant relationship between SBMC advocacy strategies and infrastructural development in Zamfara State basic schools.

Table 2: Relationship between SBMC Advocacy and Infrastructural Development

































             VariablesNSD  df   r-Value  P-Value  Decision
SBMC advocacy strategies 

263
 

3.08
 

0.480
 

 
   

 

Ho
 

Infrastructural development
 

 

263
 

 

3.54
 

 

0.514
2610.4190.000rejected

As indicated in table 2, the calculated r-value using Pearson Product Moment Correlation at .05 level of significance was 0.419 which is greater than the critical value of 0.000. Therefore, the null hypothesis, which stated that there is no significant relationship between SBMC advocacy strategies and infrastructural development in Zamfara state basic schools, was rejected. This shows that a moderate positive relationship exists between SBMC advocacy strategies and infrastructural development.

The finding in table 2 indicated that the infrastructural development in basic schools was as a result of poor and haphazard SBMC advocacy strategies. Advocacy is usually effective if it is based on facts, not suppositions; draws upon practical experience and shows  legitimacy for the claims it makes; is carefully and strategically planned; it closely involves and honestly represents any group on whose behalf it is undertaken; and who are able to speak for themselves whenever possible (Akinsolu & Onibon 2008). A successful advocacy approach is one that is integrated, planned and influential (Black, 2002).

Hypothesis Two


Ho2: There is no significant relationship between SBMC resource control strategies and infrastructural development in Zamfara State basic schools.

Table 3: Relationship between SBMC Resource Control Strategies and Infrastructural Development.

































VariablesNSD  df   r-Value  P-Value  Decision
SBMC resource control strategies 

263
 

3.20
 

0.455
 

 
   

 

Ho
 

Infrastructural development
 

 

263
 

 

3.54
 

 

0.514
2610.2960.000rejected



Table 3 shows that the calculated r-value of 0.296 is greater than the critical r-value of 0.000 at 0.05 level of significance. The null hypothesis, which states that there is no significant relationship between SBMC resource control strategies and infrastructural development in Zamfara State basic schools, is rejected. This means that there is a low positive relationship between SBMC resource control strategies and infrastructural development in Zamfara State basic schools.

This finding in table 3 means that the poorer the SBMC resource control strategies the poorer would the basic schools infrastructural development. This is in line with Jokomba (2013) who warned that before any control strategy can be put in place, SBMC must ensure that a friendly environment for which its implementation is created. According to Jokomba (2013) this could be through: The development of good attitude to the controls envisaged by both management and employees; Creation of a good school accounting structure i.e. having a good reporting structure; Segregating of such as initiation of transaction; custody of  the underlying asset and recording of  transaction.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS


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

Summary of Findings


The findings of the study are summarized as follows:

(1) There is inadequacy of infrastructure in Zamfara state basic schools.

(2) There is significant relationship between SBMC advocacy strategies and infrastructural development in Zamfara state basic schools.

(3) There is no significant relationship between SBMC resource control strategies and infrastructural development in Zamfara state basic schools.

https://www.amsoshi.com/2017/11/04/laughter-multilingual-society/

Conclusion


School-Based Management committee in basic schools tend to promise a brighter future for Universal Basic Education in Zamfara state. Although the infrastructure in Zamfara state basic school were noted to be grossly inadequate and that the strategies used by the SBMCs was ineffective in developing the needed infrastructure. It is very clear that the need to improve these strategies to ensure high level of development in basic schools infrastructure. Low returns should continue to be expected as long as SBMC strategies are not taken serious.

Recommendations


Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations were made:

(1) Old students’ associations, philanthropists, communities-based organizations and well-meaning individuals in the society should, in collaboration with the SBMCs, assist in the provision of infrastructure in their school for effective teaching and learning.

(2) SBMC should improve in their advocacy strategies so that community can be fully mobilized to come to the rescue of Zamfara state basic schools which are in serious need of infrastructure.

(3) SBMC at the state level should coordinate the financial activities of the SBMC at the community to ensure that they followed laid down rules and regulations governing financial management of a school.


References


Abubakar, A. (2010). Resources management: a tool for effective running of schools by head teachers in Nigeria. Abuja:

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>

Agabi, O.G.; Okorosaye-Orubite, Ezikiel-Hart, J. & Egbezor. D. E.(2005). School and society. Port Harcourt: Davidstone Publishers.

Agresti, A. & Finlay, B. (2008). Statistical options for the social sciences (4th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prectice Hall. Retieved from http//:www.fao.org/docrep/w3241E/

Akinbile, L. A. (2003). Validity in Research. In T. Agbola, L. Egunjobi, & C. O. Olatubara, Research method: A pratical guide. (pp. 130-140). Lagos: MURLAB Searchwisdom Education Services Publishers, Editors and Management Consultants.

Akinsolu, T. & Onibon, N. (2008). Training manual for community facilitators and members of SBMC. Abuja: Federal Ministry of Education.

Akpochafo, W. (2003). Resource Management for Effective Instruction in Nigerian Universities: Some, practical considerations Nsukka: The Journal of WCCI Nigerian Chapter 4 (1).

Alabi, M. (2003). The research process. In T. Agbola, L. Egunjobi, & C. O. Olatubara, Research method: A pratical guide. (pp. 17-32). Lagos: MURLAB Searchwisdom Education Services Publishers, Editors and Management Consultants.

Alogba-Olukoya, M. (2012). NUT decries poor state of school infrastructure. Abuja: News Agency of Nigeria. Retrieved on Tuesday 6th May, 2014 from www.nanngronline.com/section/general/

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

Anaduaka, U. S. &Okafor, C. F. (2013).The Universal Basic Education (UBE) Programme in Nigeria: Problems and Prospects. Basic Research Journal of Education Research and Review, 2(3):42-48

Awotunde, P. O. & Ugudulunwa, C. A. (2004). Research method in education. Jos, Nigeria. Fab Anieh (Nig.) Ltd.

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

Black, M. (2002). A Handbook  on Advocacy:  Child Domestic Workers- finding a voice. Anti slavery  International.

Bennett, S.; Woods, T.; Liyanage, W. M. & Smith, D. (1991). A simplified general method for cluster-sample surveys of health in developing countries. World Health Statistics Quarterly, 44(3), 98-106.

Branham,  D. (2004). The wise man builds his house upon the rock: the effects of inadequate school building infrastructure on student attendance. Social Science Quarterly, 85(5).

Curvers, K.; Weerd, G.D.; Dupont, S.; Mols, S. and Nuytten, C. (2011). Well-being at school: does infrastructure matters? Antwerp: OECD

Dakar Framework of Action (2000).World education forum. Dakar: Senegal

Dantani, S.M. (1997). The role of school administrators in the management of instructional facilities. Seminar paper post graduate school. Faculty of education Usmanu Danfodiyo University Sokoto. Nigeria.

Durosaro, D. O. (1998). School plant management in Nigeria: Trends, issues and problems in Management of Nigerian Education - Project monitoring and school plant maintenance. A publication of the National Institute for Planning and Administration, 2, 53-63.

Engels, N. (2004). Graag naar school. Een meetinstrument voor het welbevinden van leerlingen secundair Onderwijs, Brussels.

Getzels, J. W. & Guba, E. G. (1957). Social behaviour and the administrative process. School Review, 65, 423-441.

Hashim, Y. A. (2010). Determining sufficiency of sample size in management survey research activities. International Journal of Organisational Management & Entrepreneurship Development, 6(1), 119-130.

Henderson, R. H. & Sundaresan, T. (1982). Cluster sampling to access immunization coverage: a view of experience with a simplified method. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 60(2), 253-260. Retrieved from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/1982/Vol60.No2/

Hodges Anthony (ed) (2001).  Children’s and Women’s Rights in Nigeria: A Wake-up Call- Situation Assessment and Analysis. Abuja: National Planning Commission and UNICEF.

Ivowu, U. (1999). Science and technology in the post decode in Nigeria; Policy practice and prospects. In Akpan B.B. (1999) (ed) perspectives on education and science teaching. Abuja: Foremost Educational Services ltd.

Jokomba, H. D. (2013). Financial control measures. Bratim Training Nigeria.

Leemans, G. (2008).  De schoolgebouwenmonitor. Indicator voor de kwaliteit van schoolgebouwen in Vlaanderen. Garant, Brussels: AGIOn..

Lunenburg, F. C. (2010) Schools as open systems. Schooling, 1(1)

Maeyer, S. & Rymenans, R (2004). Onderzoek naar kenmerken van effectieve scholen. Gent: Academia Press.

Maeyer, S.; Kavadias, D. & Coertjens, L. (2010). Open leerpakket Gevorderde analysetechnieken. Inleiding tot multilevel analyse, University of Antwerp.

Malen, B.; Ogawa, R.T. &Kranz, J. (1990). What do we know about school-based management? A case study of the literature- a call for research. In Clune, W.H. & Witte, J. F. (eds). Choice and control in American education, volume 2: The practice of choice, decentralization and school structuring. London :Falmer Press.

Nafiu, L. A. (2012). Comparison of one-stage, two-stage, and three-stage estimator using finite population. The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology, 13(2), 166-173.

Norlin, J. M. (2009). Human behavior and the social environment: Social systems theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.

Odia, L. O. & Omofonmwan, S. I. (2007). Educational system in Nigeria. Problems and prospects. Journal of Social Sciences, 14(1): 81-86.

Ogundele, J. A. & Adelabu, M. A. (2009). Improving  pupils quality through community advocacy:  the role of School – Based Management Committee (SBMC).UluslararasiSosyalAratırmalarDergisi- The Journal of International Social Research, 2(8)

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

Olson, D.H & Defrain, J. (2000). Marriage and the family. Diversity and strength. Mountain View: May Field Publishing Company.

Onuoha – Chidiebere, U. (2011). Challenges to Effective Management and Utilization of Teaching Resources in Nigerian Schools. ABSU Journal of Arts, Management, Education, Law and  Social Sciences (JAMELSS), 1(1); 118-127

Oyedeji, N. B. (1998). Management in education: Principles and practices. Lagos: AKAS Publishers.

Ozigi, A. O. (1977). A Handbook on School Administration and Management. London: Macmillan.

Peretomode, V. F. (1991). Educational administration applied concepts theoritical perspectives for students and practitioners. Ikeja-Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Limited.

Pinnock, H. (2012). Performance analysis of School Based Management Committees supported by ESSPIN: findings from programme data 2010-2011. Abuja: ESSPIN

Tahir, G. (2005). Universal basic education in Nigerian. The journey so far. In Maduewesi, E. (eds). Nigeria Journal of Teacher Education and Teaching. Asaba, 1 (1), 217-24.

UBE (2011). Revised guidelines for the development of school-based management committees. Abuja: Social Mobilization Department. Retrieved on Tuesday 21 January, 2013 from http://www.ubeconline.com/

UBE (2013). Facts and figures: 2012 enrolment by state. Retrieved on 3rd February, 2014 from htpp//www.ubeconline.com/facts-figures/enrolment/

UNESCO (2008). National Education Support Strategy (UNESS) for Nigeria 2006-2015. Abuja: Author

UNESCO (2014). Teaching and learning: achieving quality for all. Education for all global monitoring report. UNESCO Publishing. Retrieved on 16/08/2014 from

Yusuf, S. A. (2003). Sampling techniques. In T. Agbola, L. Egunjobi, & C. O. Olatubara, Research method: A pratical guide. (pp. 130-140). Lagos: MURLAB Searchwisdom Education Services Publishers, Editors and Management Consultants.

No comments