ERICC Policy Brief _ Drivers of (in)coherence in delivery of education in Northeast Nigeria

This policy brief presents a variety of examples of misalignment between key education sector actors with respect to the goals and outcomes of education in conflict-affected areas in Northeast Nigeria. It draws on the findings of a longer ERICC working paper1 based on key informant interviews conducted in 2022 by ODI and the Common Heritage Foundation alongside a broad literature review. We treat these examples of misalignment as expressions of incoherence in the education system, drawing on concepts of ‘coherence for learning’ (Pritchett, 2015) and ‘humanitarian-development coherence’ (INEE, 2021), as well as the ERICC Conceptual Framework (Kim et al., 2022). In addition to identifying some of the sources of incoherence, we provide suggestions on how to improve coherence. By doing this, the brief enhances our understanding of education systems in protracted crisis settings, which we hope to further refine in future research.

The above analysis shows that humanitarian and development actors are already sensitive to the government's position on the conflict, as limited donor investment in the northeast region demonstrates. Despite the challenging environment, however, there is scope to expand and deepen conflict-sensitive education planning and implementation via established and recognised government channels. To strengthen education system coherence, humanitarian and development actors could:

• Develop relationships between government (North East Development Commission – NEDC) and humanitarian (EiEWG) coordination groups to create explicit and collective objectives for the education of conflict-affected children. At present, these coordination groups operate in silos, lacking meaningful synergy. While both entities in principle involve state and/or local non-state actors, it is unclear to what degree the government can or wants to take a greater role in setting the direction on the status of education in emergencies. Improving alignment here would involve actively working to shape a collective objective and milestones for education in emergencies in conflict-affected states. As a starting point, there is a clear advantage to using NEDC and EiEWG for regular information-sharing and joint decision-making along both the horizontal and the vertical axes of the education system, at least at the state level.
• Prioritise coordination and advocacy at the state level, through and with state-level governors. In Nigeria, state-level executives play a pivotal role in determining the level of support and protection afforded to actors in executing their designated functions within the education system. Their support is often essential to overcoming the fragmentation of actors in the education sector. For humanitarian actors and development donors, engaging at the state level represents a clear opportunity to develop and advocate for integrated education in emergencies budget lines and overarching implementation goals. This is particularly relevant in the BAY states (Borno, Adamawa and Yobe), where state governors are directly affected by the conflict and, like humanitarian sector actors, frequently advocate for the financing and integration of religious schools. At the state level, a combination of political negotiation and joint capacity assessment is most likely to produce clear objectives for both the humanitarian and development sectors to lead to system-level improvements.
• Transition to a state-level funding model for education in emergencies (in both conflict-affected and IDP-receiving states) that is predictable and recognises the protracted nature of conflict and climate-induced displacement. This means focusing on the needs of ministries of education within these states and creating integrated funding budgets across the humanitarian and development sectors at the state level. In the past, integrated funding models at the state level – such as the EU-funded programme for Borno, which funded educational initiatives through Plan International and Save the Children – have shown some success in placing OOSC in mainstream schools (Perret, 2019; Haruna, 2022).
• Share information across sector actors before launching education programmes at the state level. For example, in relation to teacher training programmes in conflict-affected states, donors and implementing partners should disclose data on (i) the nature of the training and how it will respond to gaps in current training; (ii) the geographical area of focus and any previous similar trainings undertaken; (iii) the planned deployment of teachers once they are trained; and (iv) clear impact indicators of training, moving beyond recording only ‘numbers of teachers trained.’ Existing groups such as NEDC and EiEWG are a good place to start in gathering and sharing this type of information.