ERICC Working Paper _ Drivers of (In)coherence in the delivery of Education in Northeast Nigeria

The education system in Northeast Nigeria has faced severe disruptions as a result of persistent clashes between multiple militia groups and government security forces since the late 2000s. The protracted conflict has led to displacement of teachers and students and widespread school closures, as well as physical and psychological harm to children.

While much of the policy discourse focuses on rebuilding and securing school infrastructure in the northeast, this paper takes a deeper look into how relationships and dynamics among key actors in the education sector are affecting the coherence of the system, a crucial factor in enhancing quality of education.

Specifically, the paper explores horizontal and vertical alignment within the education system in areas such as financing, curriculum, teacher training and measures of learning outcomes. The study brings attention to several critical issues: low normative commitment to education among humanitarian and federal-level government actors; suboptimal coordination between humanitarian and state-level government actors; ambiguous distribution of responsibilities within the government’s education sector; challenges in teacher recruitment and training; and gaps in data utilisation.

Furthermore, this paper contributes theoretically to the field of Education in Emergencies (EiE) by linking the concepts of ‘coherence for learning’ (Pritchett, 2015) with those of ‘humanitarian–development coherence’ (OECD, 2017; INEE, 2021). By doing so, it enhances our understanding of education systems in protracted crisis settings, anticipating further refinements and application of the framework developed here in future research.

Research findings presented in this paper suggest that, to improve access, quality and continuity of education in Northeast Nigeria, development and humanitarian actors should:

• Prioritise coordination at the state level – where the political office is most directly affected by the conflict – to create meaningful joint strategies for humanitarian, development and government actors. A combination of political negotiation and joint capacity assessment is most likely to produce clear objectives for each sector to create system-level improvements.
• Work with existing government-led coordination structures for conflict-affected regions (e.g. the North East Development Commission, NEDC) to create explicit and collective objectives for the education of conflict-affected children.
• Transition to a state-level funding model for EiE – in both conflict-affected states and those receiving internally displaced persons – instead of a vertical funding model where global-level funding from donor headquarters is earmarked to a sector and then cascaded to implementing organisations at the national and then state level. Distribution of funding directly to the state level could be more predictable and responsive to the protracted nature of conflict and climate-induced displacement. This means focusing on the needs of ministries of education within those states and creating integrated funding budgets across humanitarian and development sectors at the state level.
• Share information across sector actors before launching education programmes at the state level. For example, for teacher training programmes in conflict-affected states, donors and implementing partners should disclosure the data on (i) the nature of training to be undertaken and how it fills a gap in present training, (ii) the geographical area of focus and any previous similar trainings undertaken, (iii) planned deployment of teachers once they are trained and (iv) clear impact indicators of training, thus moving beyond recording only ‘numbers of teachers trained.’ Existing groups such as NEDC and the Education in Emergencies Working Group (EiEWG) provide a good starting point for gathering and sharing this type of information.