The money is large but it raises concerns. The
quantity makes one wonder if those involved think of quality, too. All
of that is with reference to the N200bn the Federal Government made
available to Nigerian universities lately. And the worry about quantity
versus quality is in order in this season when President Goodluck
Jonathan displays a “small is cute” philosophy for the citizens to see.
Didn’t Nigerians see him in December in two different churches where he
had grandly presented small but cute season’s greetings’ cards to two
different priests? As usual, some hard-to-impress Nigerians will subject
that innocent presidential gesture to interpretations. They may allege
that those cards were that small because Mr. President didn’t want to
dip his hands too deep into his pockets. Of course, the Presidency will
counter that such a claim is an “indecent haste to cast the most
sensational and negative” interpretation of the President’s action. In
fairness to the Presidency, the fact that the concerned priests didn’t
have to huff and puff as they received the cards from presidential hands
showed that the President was only being considerate. So, an
interpretation to the contrary will be “most incongruous with the thrust
of the President’s” card-giving gestures on Christmas Day and on the
last Sunday of 2013. In any case, Nigerians must note that the
Presidency will no longer take kindly to habitual analysis, no, habitual
interpretation of the President’s words and actions because it amounts
to instigating “fear among the populace”, and it’s so “unpatriotic”.
Therefore, Nigerians should henceforth show patriotism by accepting
whatever the President says without question, and must desist from
engaging in unsolicited interpretation because it’s tantamount to
“reckless scaremongering”.
Anyway, the Presidency had earlier on proved itself generous when it released N200bn to Nigerian universities. But one wonders if a thought is spared for fundamental issues affecting tertiary education, and the nation’s needs. The concern is compounded by the interest the funds have generated from stakeholders. Even those who didn’t break a sweat to secure the funds have sharpened their knives and rolled up their sleeves. The Academic Staff Union of Universities will have to adopt the Nelson Mandela approach in this kind of situation. Otherwise, there are “stakeholders” it should loathe to see catch a whiff of those tantalising billions. As a matter of fact, now that the N200bn is enjoying the coolness of the vault of the Central Bank under Governor, Lamido Sanusi’ eagle’s eyes, those who had lobbed stones at ASUU earlier on had since exchanged them for nothing more harmful than soap suds. And those who had cheered only the Federal Government at that stage when the government thought it could order university lecturers around are now cheering both sides. For the period the industrial action lasted however, government did win many to its side, including men who should preach the word on the pulpit but used the occasion of the burial ceremony of a former ASUU president, Prof. Festus Iyayi, to speak for the government in Benin. Deservingly, lecturers present had stood up and sang “Solidarity Forever”, an indication that the man who had caused a sermon to be desecrated should check if he still preaches what burns the hearts of men, or he’s been engaging in mere speech delivery. It’s part of the problem this nation has.
The National Association of Nigerian Students wasn’t left out, that time. When the feud ended, NANS’s leadership held a meeting where it said it had set up a committee to represent the interest of Nigerian students on how the N200bn should be spent. And to think while the feud had lasted, NANS’ leadership had said a document it obtained from the government, not from lecturers, indicated that ASUU’s primary demands were in its own interest and not that of students. In October, the students’ leadership had said, “We have considered the option of taking them (ASUU) to court; we have considered the option of leading a protest against ASUU.” NANS leadership was not the only group in the category of those who changed tune after the feud was resolved. Didn’t Nigerians see the Minister of Education, Nyesom Wike, as he went on a warpath and commanded Vice-Chancellors to announce the reopening of campuses that no one had declared closed in the first place? Yet, mid-December, one could mistake him for a twin brother of Nasir Fagge, the ASUU president, as Wike led him into a conference room to sign the Memorandum of Understanding which ended the strike? All of that happened after ASUU members had been called some rather nasty names by everyone on the government’s side of the feud. It’s noteworthy how many voices have begun to say there’s no victor and no vanquished, and that now, when N200bn is made available, all is rosy again and the universities can move on. More than anything else, such a talk calls attention to the mentality of how many in this clime, think the challenges confronting the nation’s tertiary education should be resolved – throw money at it, and everyone can go to sleep. Meanwhile, fundamental questions are left unattended. It’s what this piece has a problem with.
A sum of over N1tn has been mentioned in this deal that ended the lecturers’ industrial action. Yet, there’s the need to ask how this sum can assist in addressing issues in tertiary education that force Nigerians to go out and pay dollars as students in some one-block university campuses across West Africa. There is the need to ask what this sum can do to a tertiary education that produces thousands of graduates who are not fit for the labour market. And in a season when authorities in British universities undertake reviews, closing departments for courses that don’t attract appreciable number of applicants because they are of little use in the labour market, there is the need to ask if universities in Nigeria will review courses, or use this sum to give life to degree programmes that have become dumping grounds and are meaningless to the changing economic and development needs of the nation. There’s a link between tertiary education and development, no doubt. For universities help create new knowledge, develop new skills, and that way, contribute to productivity and economic growth. Efforts to get this right in Nigerian universities didn’t seem to have featured in some of the reasons given for making billions of naira available. And the matter can be traced to a government which appears to concentrate on access to the detriment of quality or the nation’s changing needs, otherwise opening nine new public-funded universities that it can hardly fund wouldn’t have been its priority.
Of course, there’s ever a case of contest between access and quality. So that raises questions: How can access be increased, and at the same time meet quality standard that’s required, as well as meet labour market demands? How can it be ensured that all who merit to have tertiary education have the means and opportunity to do so? These are challenges for policymakers – to have a balance between the competing goals of access, quality, relevance and equity. So, one challenge for policymakers is to identify what the nation’s policy goals are. For each set of policy goals, there can be different strategies with different financing options. As stakeholders wait to access the billions in the CBN’s vault, has any thought been spared for this angle to the entire matter? Or, is this going to be a spending spree on an old structure that hasn’t met the nation’s needs? Will these funds be used to, among other things, conduct a review of degree programmes offered, and accordingly, provide the needed infrastructure?
It’s time Nigeria’s tertiary education system gave attention to economic development as part of its core mission. So far, university education here is largely theory-oriented. But it can allocate resources to create entrepreneurship systems within its institutions to advance economic development. And these institutions themselves can create a quality workforce by growing, training, and attracting the finest talent. They can support business and industry, improve learning and teaching from pre-school through graduate school, play visible roles in disseminating research, promote technology transfer, enhance the technology infrastructure, as well as promote livable communities. These are fundamental issues that must not be left behind in this season that everyone eyes the billons made available to universities. For, with all the challenges that confront the nation, an end to the government-lecturers’ feud cannot just be fund that is ready to be utilised, it should also be about how it can be applied to turn Nigerian universities into a conveyor belt that moves the nation forward in every sphere of national development. If this is not done, money will be thrown at the university system but the problem of 2009 will run ahead into the future, where it shall yet wait to be addressed.
Anyway, the Presidency had earlier on proved itself generous when it released N200bn to Nigerian universities. But one wonders if a thought is spared for fundamental issues affecting tertiary education, and the nation’s needs. The concern is compounded by the interest the funds have generated from stakeholders. Even those who didn’t break a sweat to secure the funds have sharpened their knives and rolled up their sleeves. The Academic Staff Union of Universities will have to adopt the Nelson Mandela approach in this kind of situation. Otherwise, there are “stakeholders” it should loathe to see catch a whiff of those tantalising billions. As a matter of fact, now that the N200bn is enjoying the coolness of the vault of the Central Bank under Governor, Lamido Sanusi’ eagle’s eyes, those who had lobbed stones at ASUU earlier on had since exchanged them for nothing more harmful than soap suds. And those who had cheered only the Federal Government at that stage when the government thought it could order university lecturers around are now cheering both sides. For the period the industrial action lasted however, government did win many to its side, including men who should preach the word on the pulpit but used the occasion of the burial ceremony of a former ASUU president, Prof. Festus Iyayi, to speak for the government in Benin. Deservingly, lecturers present had stood up and sang “Solidarity Forever”, an indication that the man who had caused a sermon to be desecrated should check if he still preaches what burns the hearts of men, or he’s been engaging in mere speech delivery. It’s part of the problem this nation has.
The National Association of Nigerian Students wasn’t left out, that time. When the feud ended, NANS’s leadership held a meeting where it said it had set up a committee to represent the interest of Nigerian students on how the N200bn should be spent. And to think while the feud had lasted, NANS’ leadership had said a document it obtained from the government, not from lecturers, indicated that ASUU’s primary demands were in its own interest and not that of students. In October, the students’ leadership had said, “We have considered the option of taking them (ASUU) to court; we have considered the option of leading a protest against ASUU.” NANS leadership was not the only group in the category of those who changed tune after the feud was resolved. Didn’t Nigerians see the Minister of Education, Nyesom Wike, as he went on a warpath and commanded Vice-Chancellors to announce the reopening of campuses that no one had declared closed in the first place? Yet, mid-December, one could mistake him for a twin brother of Nasir Fagge, the ASUU president, as Wike led him into a conference room to sign the Memorandum of Understanding which ended the strike? All of that happened after ASUU members had been called some rather nasty names by everyone on the government’s side of the feud. It’s noteworthy how many voices have begun to say there’s no victor and no vanquished, and that now, when N200bn is made available, all is rosy again and the universities can move on. More than anything else, such a talk calls attention to the mentality of how many in this clime, think the challenges confronting the nation’s tertiary education should be resolved – throw money at it, and everyone can go to sleep. Meanwhile, fundamental questions are left unattended. It’s what this piece has a problem with.
A sum of over N1tn has been mentioned in this deal that ended the lecturers’ industrial action. Yet, there’s the need to ask how this sum can assist in addressing issues in tertiary education that force Nigerians to go out and pay dollars as students in some one-block university campuses across West Africa. There is the need to ask what this sum can do to a tertiary education that produces thousands of graduates who are not fit for the labour market. And in a season when authorities in British universities undertake reviews, closing departments for courses that don’t attract appreciable number of applicants because they are of little use in the labour market, there is the need to ask if universities in Nigeria will review courses, or use this sum to give life to degree programmes that have become dumping grounds and are meaningless to the changing economic and development needs of the nation. There’s a link between tertiary education and development, no doubt. For universities help create new knowledge, develop new skills, and that way, contribute to productivity and economic growth. Efforts to get this right in Nigerian universities didn’t seem to have featured in some of the reasons given for making billions of naira available. And the matter can be traced to a government which appears to concentrate on access to the detriment of quality or the nation’s changing needs, otherwise opening nine new public-funded universities that it can hardly fund wouldn’t have been its priority.
Of course, there’s ever a case of contest between access and quality. So that raises questions: How can access be increased, and at the same time meet quality standard that’s required, as well as meet labour market demands? How can it be ensured that all who merit to have tertiary education have the means and opportunity to do so? These are challenges for policymakers – to have a balance between the competing goals of access, quality, relevance and equity. So, one challenge for policymakers is to identify what the nation’s policy goals are. For each set of policy goals, there can be different strategies with different financing options. As stakeholders wait to access the billions in the CBN’s vault, has any thought been spared for this angle to the entire matter? Or, is this going to be a spending spree on an old structure that hasn’t met the nation’s needs? Will these funds be used to, among other things, conduct a review of degree programmes offered, and accordingly, provide the needed infrastructure?
It’s time Nigeria’s tertiary education system gave attention to economic development as part of its core mission. So far, university education here is largely theory-oriented. But it can allocate resources to create entrepreneurship systems within its institutions to advance economic development. And these institutions themselves can create a quality workforce by growing, training, and attracting the finest talent. They can support business and industry, improve learning and teaching from pre-school through graduate school, play visible roles in disseminating research, promote technology transfer, enhance the technology infrastructure, as well as promote livable communities. These are fundamental issues that must not be left behind in this season that everyone eyes the billons made available to universities. For, with all the challenges that confront the nation, an end to the government-lecturers’ feud cannot just be fund that is ready to be utilised, it should also be about how it can be applied to turn Nigerian universities into a conveyor belt that moves the nation forward in every sphere of national development. If this is not done, money will be thrown at the university system but the problem of 2009 will run ahead into the future, where it shall yet wait to be addressed.
No comments:
Post a Comment