almajiri state education - … nigeria . united ... 4.6.1 almajiri schools ... 5.1 gusau metropolis...

July 2009

This report was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Creative Associates International, Inc.

ALMAJIRI STATE EDUCATIONSUB ACCOUNTS FOR KANO AND GUSAU 2007/2008

ALMAJIRI STATE EDUCATION SUB ACCOUNTS FOR

KANO AND GUSAU 2007/2008

June 2009 Prepared by:

Zamfara State Ministry of Education Under

Nigeria State Education Accounts Project In Collaboration with:

Creative Associates International:

5301 Wisconsin Ave, Suite 700, Washington,DC 20015 Tel: 202-966-5804

Abt Associates International:

4550 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 800 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Tel: 301-34-1700

Association for Education Development Options Kano, Nigeria.

Funded by: United States Agency for International Development

June 2009 For additional copies of this report, contact Phyllis Forbes or Deepika Chawla at Creative Associates International or visit our website at www.caii.com. Contract No.: EDH 1-00-05-00029-01 Submitted to: USAID/Nigeria General Development Office/Education Unit 7-9 Mambilla Street Off Aso Drive Maitama Abuja, Nigeria United States Agency for International Development The opinions stated in this document are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID. Recommended Citation Nigeria State Education Accounts Project. June 2009. Almajiri State Education Sub Accounts for Kano and Gusau 2007/2008. Creative Associates International Inc. Washington DC.

This document was prepared by: Kano Government and Agencies: 1. Alhaji Rabi’u Alhaji 2. Umar Ibrahim 3. Murtala Abdul’Samad Tsangayu and LGs 4. Idris Tanko (Tarauni LGA) 5. Fatuhu Mustapha (Kano Municipal LGA) 6. Sadiq Murtala (Fagge LGA) 7. Mohammad Shehu Hassan (Nassarawa LGA) 8. Naziru Umar (Gwale LGA) 9. Ahmad Ado (Dala LGA) 10. Mohammad Auwal Aliyu (Kumbotso LGA) 11. Lawan Uba Adamu (Ungogo LGA) Gusau Government and Agencies: 1. Muhammad Mai’inji 2. Sani Aminu 3. Yusuf Garba Joda 4. Mohammad Alkali Makarantun Allo (Qur’anic Schools) and LGs 5. Aliyu Yusuf (Galadima B) 6. Aminu Marafa (Madawaki) 7. Ibrahim Yusuf (Galadima A) 8. Idris Abdullahi (T/ Wada A) 9. Muhammad Mai’inji (Mayana B) 10. Mukhtar Ibrahim (T/Wada B) 11. Rabi’u Maiwada (Wanke da Janyau 12. Sadisu Ibrahim (Sabon Gari ) 13. Sanusi Alaramma (Mayana A)

With support from:

Creative Associates International: Phyllis Forbes Marc Bonnenfant Abt Associates Inc: Deepika Chawla Association for Education Development Options (Nigerian NGO): Dr. Abdalla Uba Adamu Andrew Niyi Dada Dr. Olokunle Frank Odumosu (Kunle) Abba Wali Abdullahi Abdul Aziz Gaya

Nigeria SEA: Subaccount for Almajiri Education in Kano and Gusau 2007-08 Page 1 of 92

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................ 3 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 8 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 12 1.1 EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT IN NIGERIA ................................................................................................ 12 1.2 WHAT ARE ALMAJIRI STATE EDUCATION SUB-ACCOUNTS? .............................................................. 13 1.3 WHY CONDUCT THE SUB ACCOUNT FOR ALMAJIRI EDUCATION? ..................................................... 14 2 UNDERSTANDING THE TRADITIONAL QUR’ANIC (ALMAJIRI) EDUCATION IN KANO AND ZAMFARA STATES .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 2.1 The Context Of Traditional Qur’anic Education In Kano And Zamfara States .................................... 16 2.2 Organizational Structure of Tsangaya ............................................................................................... 19 2.3 Academic Structure of Tsangaya....................................................................................................... 20 3 ALMAJIRI STATE EDUCATION SUB-ACCOUNT METHODOLOGY ............................................................. 22 3.1 WHAT ARE ALMAJIRI STATE EDUCATION SUB-ACCOUNTS? .............................................................. 22

3.1.1 National Education Accounts .......................................................................................................... 22 3.1.2 Adaptation of NEA to SEA ............................................................................................................... 25 3.1.3 Adaptation of SEA to ASESA............................................................................................................ 25

3.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF ALMAJIRI STATE EDUCATION SUB ACCOUNTS .............................................. 25 3.2.1 Conducting Almajiri State Education Sub Account (ASESA) in Kano (Kano State) .......................... 26 3.2.2 Conducting Almajiri State Education Sub Account (ASESA) in Gusau (Zamfara State) ................... 27 3.2.3 Boundaries and Classifications ....................................................................................................... 28 3.2.4 Data collection ................................................................................................................................ 31 3.2.5 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 32

4 FINANCING OF ALMAJIRI EDUCATION AND FLOW OF FUNDS FOR ALMAJIRI SUB ACCOUNTS IN KANO 33 4.1 KANO METROPOLIS EFFORT FOR ALMAJIRI EDUCATION .................................................................. 33 4.2 SOURCES OF FINANCING FOR ALMAJIRI EDUCATION ....................................................................... 34

4.2.1 Distribution of Source of Financing ................................................................................................. 34 4.2.2 Sources of Financing by Type .......................................................................................................... 35

4.3 FLOW OF FUNDS FROM SOURCES OF FINANCING TO FINANCING AGENTS ....................................... 37 4.3.3 Flow of Funds by Type of Financing Agents – Public, Private, Rest of World .................................. 37 4.3.4 Flow of Public Sector Funds to Public Financing Agents ................................................................. 39 4.3.5 Flow of Private Sector Funds to Private Financing Agents .............................................................. 40 4.3.6 Flow of Rest of World Funds to Financing Agents .......................................................................... 42

4.4 FLOW OF FUNDS FROM FINANCING AGENTS TO EDUCATION PROVIDERS ........................................ 42 4.5 FLOW OF FUNDS FROM EDUCATION PROVIDERS TO USES ............................................................... 44

4.5.1 Flow of Funds from Public Sector to Uses by Education Providers.................................................. 45 4.5.2 Flow of Funds from Private Financing Agents to Uses ................................................................... 46

4.6 ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR FINANCING EFFORT FOR ALMAJIRI EDUCATION IN KANO 47

4.6.1 Almajiri Schools – Some Descriptives .............................................................................................. 48 4.6.2 Public Sector Sources of Financing for Education ........................................................................... 50 4.6.3 Analysis of Private Sector Financing Effort ..................................................................................... 50

4.7 AVERAGE EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL .................................................................................................. 51


5 FINANCING OF ALMAJIRI EDUCATION AND FLOW OF FUNDS FOR ALMAJIRI SUB ACCOUNTS IN GUSAU 52 5.1 GUSAU METROPOLIS EFFORT FOR ALMAJIRI EDUCATION ................................................................ 52 5.2 SOURCES OF FINANCING FOR ALMAJIRI EDUCATION ....................................................................... 53

5.2.1 Distribution of Source of Financing ................................................................................................. 53 5.2.2 Sources of Financing by Type .......................................................................................................... 54

5.3 FLOW OF FUNDS FROM SOURCES OF FINANCING TO FINANCING AGENTS ....................................... 56 5.3.1 Flow of Funds by Type of Financing Agents – Public, Private, Rest of World .................................. 56 5.3.2 Flow of Public Sector Funds to Financing Agents ............................................................................ 58 5.3.3 Flow of Private Sector Funds to Financing Agents .......................................................................... 59 5.3.4 Flow of Rest of World Funds to Financing Agents .......................................................................... 61

5.4 FLOW OF FUNDS FROM FINANCING AGENTS TO EDUCATION PROVIDERS ........................................ 61 5.4.1 Financing Agent to Education Provider by Level of Education ........................................................ 61

5.5 FLOW OF FUNDS FROM EDUCATION PROVIDERS TO USES ............................................................... 62 5.5.1 Flow of Funds from Public Sector to Uses by Education Providers.................................................. 64 5.5.2 Flow of Funds from Private Financing Agents to Uses ................................................................... 65

5.6 ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR FINANCING EFFORT FOR ALMAJIRI EDUCATION IN ZAMFARA STATE ........................................................................................................................................... 66

5.6.1 Almajiri Schools – Some Descriptives .............................................................................................. 66 5.6.2 Public Sector Sources of Financing for Education ........................................................................... 68 5.6.3 Analysis of Private Sector Financing Effort ..................................................................................... 69

5.7 AVERAGE EXPENDITURE PER PUPIL .................................................................................................. 69 6 COMPARATIVE AND MACRO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF EXPENDITURES FOR ALMAJIRI EDUCATION IN KANO AND GUSAU ........................................................................................................................................ 70 6.1 EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURE FROM A MACROECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE ......................................... 70 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 74 7.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 74 7.2 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 74 7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 75

ANNEX 1: LIST OF SWG MEMBERS AND DATA COLLECTORS.......................................................................................... 76 ANNEX 2: ASESA CLASSIFICATION AND BOUNDARIES .................................................................................................. 77 ANNEX 3: DATA COLLECTION REPORT ....................................................................................................................... 82 ANNEX 4: DATA MATRICES ..................................................................................................................................... 90


List of Tables TABLE 3.1: DATA BOUNDARIES FOR ASESA ........................................................................................... 30 TABLE 3.2: CLASSIFICATIONS FOR ASESA KANO AND GUSAU, NIGERIA ................................................. 30

TABLE 4.1: EXPENDITURE ON ALMAJIRI EDUCATION IN KANO, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ......................... 33 TABLE 4.2: SOURCES OF ALMAJIRI EDUCATION FINANCING IN KANO, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .............. 34 TABLE 4.3 SOURCES OF FINANCING BY TYPE: ALL SECTORS, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ................................. 35 TABLE 4.4: DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES MANAGED BY FINANCING AGENTS, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR: 37 TABLE 4.5: FLOW OF FUNDS FROM SOURCES OF FINANCING TO FINANCING AGENTS, 2007-08 SCHOOL

YEAR ............................................................................................................................................ 38 TABLE 4.6: FLOW OF FUNDS FROM SOURCES OF FINANCING TO FINANCING AGENTS - PUBLIC SECTOR,

2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .................................................................................................................................. 40 TABLE 4.7: FLOW OF FUNDS FROM SOURCES OF FINANCING TO FINANCING AGENTS - PRIVATE SECTOR,

2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .................................................................................................................................. 41 TABLE 4.8: DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES FROM FINANCING AGENTS TO EDUCATION PROVIDERS BY

LEVEL OF EDUCATION, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .............................................................................................. 43 TABLE 4.9: DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC SECTOR FUNDS BY PROVIDERS, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ...................... 43 TABLE 4.10: DISTRIBUTION OF PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDS BY PROVIDERS, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .................. 43 TABLE 4.13: PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURES BY USE CATEGORY, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ............................ 46 TABLE 4.14: PRIVATE FINANCING AGENTS TO USE, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ............................................. 47 TABLE 4.15: DISTRIBUTION OF ALMAJIRI SCHOOLS BY LEVEL, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ............................. 48 TABLE 4.15A: DISTRIBUTION OF ALMAJIRI SCHOOLS BY TYPE OF SCHOOL, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ....... 48 TABLE 4.15B: DISTRIBUTION OF ALMAJIRI SCHOOLS BY SCHOOL STRUCTURE, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR . 48 TABLE 4.15C: DISTRIBUTION OF ALMAJIRI SCHOOLS BY TYPE OF CURRICULUM TAUGHT, 2007-08 SCHOOL

YEAR ............................................................................................................................................ 49 TABLE 4.16: DISTRIBUTION OF ALMAJIRI STUDENTS BY LEVEL, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ........................... 49 TABLE 4.17: DISTRIBUTION OF ALMAJIRI SCHOOL TEACHERS BY LEVEL, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .............. 49

TABLE 5.1: GUSAU EXPENDITURE ON ALMAJIRI EDUCATION, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ........................... 52 TABLE 5.3 SOURCES OF FINANCING BY TYPE: ALL SECTORS, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ................................. 54 TABLE 5.4: DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES MANAGED BY FINANCING AGENTS, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR: 56 TABLE 5.5: FLOW OF FUNDS FROM SOURCES OF FINANCING TO FINANCING AGENTS, 2007-08 SCHOOL

YEAR ............................................................................................................................................ 57 TABLE 5.6 DISTRIBUTION OF PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDS MANAGED BY PRIVATE FINANCING AGENTS, 2007-

08 SCHOOL YEAR ........................................................................................................................................... 59 TABLE 5.7: DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES FROM FINANCING AGENTS TO EDUCATION PROVIDERS BY

LEVEL OF EDUCATION, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .............................................................................................. 61 TABLE 5.8: DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC SECTOR FUNDS BY PROVIDERS, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ...................... 62 TABLE 5.9: DISTRIBUTION OF PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDS BY PROVIDERS, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .................... 62 TABLE 5.16: PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURES BY USE CATEGORY, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ............................ 64 TABLE 5.17: PRIVATE FINANCING AGENTS TO USE, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ............................................. 65 TABLE 5.18: DISTRIBUTION OF ALMAJIRI SCHOOLS BY LEVEL, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ............................. 66 TABLE 5.18A: DISTRIBUTION OF ALMAJIRI SCHOOLS BY SCHOOL STRUCTURE, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR . 67 TABLE 5.18B: DISTRIBUTION OF ALMAJIRI SCHOOLS BY TYPE OF SCHOOL, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ....... 67 TABLE 5.18C: DISTRIBUTION OF ALMAJIRI SCHOOLS BY TYPE OF CURRICULUM TAUGHT, 2007-08 SCHOOL

YEAR ............................................................................................................................................ 67 TABLE 5.19: DISTRIBUTION OF ALMAJIRI STUDENTS BY LEVEL, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ........................... 67


TABLE 5.20: DISTRIBUTION OF ALMAJIRI SCHOOL TEACHERS BY LEVEL, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .............. 68

TABLE 6.1: KANO AND GUSAU EXPENDITURE ON ALMAJIRI EDUCATION, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .............

............................................................................................................................................ 70 TABLE 6.2: KANO AND GUSAU EXPENDITURE ON ALMAJIRI EDUCATION, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .............

............................................................................................................................................ 71 TABLE 6.2: KANO AND GUSAU DISTRIBUTION OF RECURRENT EXPENDITURE ON ALMAJIRI EDUCATION,

2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .................................................................................................................................. 73


LIST OF FIGURES FIG. 1 – TRADITIONAL QUR’ANIC (TSANGAYA) SYSTEM OF EDUCATION – MODEL FOR KANO AND ZAMFARA

..................................................................................................................................................................... 18 FIGURE 3.1: FLOW OF FUNDS IN THE ALMAJIRI EDUCATION SECTOR - STATE OF KANO AND GUSAU,

NIGERIA 29

FIGURE 4.1: SOURCES OF FINANCING FOR ALMAJIRI EDUCATION IN KANO, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ............. 34 FIGURE 4.2: SOURCES OF FINANCING BY TYPE: ALL SECTORS, 2005-06 SCHOOL YEAR .................................. 35 FIGURE 4.3: DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCES OF FINANCING – PUBLIC SECTOR, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .............. 36 FIGURE 4.4: DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCES OF FINANCING – PRIVATE SECTOR, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ........... 36 FIGURE 4.5: DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS MANAGED BY FINANCING AGENTS, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .............. 37 FIGURE 4.6: FLOW OF FUNDS FROM SOURCES OF FINANCING TO FINANCING AGENTS, 2007-08 SCHOOL

YEAR ............................................................................................................................................................. 38 FIGURE 4.7: DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS MANAGED BY FINANCING AGENTS BY TYPE, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR 39 FIGURE 4.8: DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS BY FINANCING AGENTS - PUBLIC SECTOR, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR. .... 39 FIGURE 4.9: COMPARISON OF FINANCING SOURCES TO FINANCING AGENTS – PUBLIC SECTOR, 2007-08

SCHOOL YEAR ............................................................................................................................................... 40 FIGURE 4.10: DISTRIBUTION OF PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDS MANAGED BY FINANCING AGENTS ...................... 41 FIGURE 4.11: COMPARISON OF FINANCING SOURCES TO FINANCING AGENTS – PRIVATE SECTOR, 2007-08

SCHOOL YEAR ............................................................................................................................................... 42 FIGURE 4.13: DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL RESOURCES TO EDUCATION PROVIDERS, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .... 43 FIGURE 4.14: DISTRIBUTION OF OVERALL EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY OF EXPENDITURE, 2007-08 SCHOOL

YEAR ............................................................................................................................................................. 44 FIGURE 4.16: PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURES BY USE CATEGORY, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ....................... 46 FIGURE 4.16: PRIVATE SECTOR EXPENDITURES BY USE CATEGORY, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ..................... 47

FIGURE 5.1: SOURCES OF FINANCING FOR ALMAJIRI EDUCATION IN GUSAU, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ........... 53 FIGURE 5.2: SOURCES OF FINANCING BY TYPE: ALL SECTORS, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .................................. 54 FIGURE 5.3: DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCES OF FINANCING – PUBLIC SECTOR, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .............. 55 FIGURE 5.4: DISTRIBUTION OF SOURCES OF FINANCING – PRIVATE SECTOR, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ........... 55 FIGURE 5.5: DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS MANAGED BY FINANCING AGENTS, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .............. 56 FIGURE 5.6: FLOW OF FUNDS FROM SOURCES OF FINANCING TO FINANCING AGENTS, 2007-08 SCHOOL

YEAR ............................................................................................................................................................. 57 FIGURE 5.7: DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS MANAGED BY FINANCING AGENTS BY TYPE, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR 58 FIGURE 5.8: DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS BY FINANCING AGENTS - PUBLIC SECTOR, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR. .... 58 FIGURE 5.9: COMPARISON OF FINANCING SOURCES TO FINANCING AGENTS – PUBLIC SECTOR, 2007-08

SCHOOL YEAR ............................................................................................................................................... 59 FIGURE 5.10: DISTRIBUTION OF PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDS MANAGED BY PRIVATE FINANCING AGENTS, 2007-

08 SCHOOL YEAR ........................................................................................................................................... 60 FIGURE 5.11: COMPARISON OF FINANCING SOURCES TO FINANCING AGENTS – PRIVATE SECTOR, 2007-08

SCHOOL YEAR ............................................................................................................................................... 60 FIGURE 5.12: DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL RESOURCES TO EDUCATION PROVIDERS, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR .... 61 FIGURE 5.14: DISTRIBUTION OF OVERALL EXPENDITURES BY CATEGORY OF EXPENDITURE, 2007-08 SCHOOL

YEAR ............................................................................................................................................................. 63 FIGURE 5.19: PUBLIC SECTOR EXPENDITURES BY USE CATEGORY, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ....................... 65 FIGURE 5.20: PRIVATE SECTOR EXPENDITURES BY USE CATEGORY, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ..................... 66


FIGURE 6.1: KANO AND GUSAU EXPENDITURE ON ALMAJIRI EDUCATION, 2007-08 SCHOOL YEAR ........ 71 FIGURE 6.2: DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENDITURES ON ALMAJIRI EDUCATION IN KANO AND GUSAU SCHOOL

YEAR 2007-08 ............................................................................................................................................ 72


Acknowledgements

The Sub Accounts for Almajiri students in Kano and Gusau was a delightfully unique experience. We are very grateful to USAID for affording us this opportunity and want to especially thank Sandy Ojikuto and Sunday Fwogos from USAID Mission as well as the rest of the USAID staff, who were incredibly supportive and helpful at every step in the process. This study was conducted by the Association for Educational Development Options (AEDO), a Nigerian non-governmental organization, and the Kano and Zamfara State Education Accounts Working Groups (SWG), under the auspices of Creative Associates International Inc and Abt Associates Inc. We were doubly fortunate indeed to have been able to work once again with the SWG who are representatives of the governments of Kano and Zamfara and who had participated in the SEAs conducted in their states. We also appreciated the input of the Tsangayu and representatives of Local Governments who participated in all of the discussions and data collection exercises. The Kano group consisted of data collectors and SWG members were: Alhaji Rabi’u Alhaji, Umar Ibrahim and Murtala Abdul’Samad. The Tsangayu and LGs were Idris Tanko (Tarauni LGA), Fatuhu Mustapha (Kano Municipal LGA), Sadiq Murtala (Fagge LGA), Mohammad Shehu Hassan (Nassarawa LGA), Naziru Umar (Gwale LGA), Ahmad Ado (Dala LGA), Mohammad Auwal Aliyu (Kumbotso LGA) and Lawan Uba Adamu (Ungogo LGA). The Gusau data collectors and SWG were Muhammad Mai’inji, Sani Aminu, Yusuf Garba Joda, Mohammad Alkali. The Makarantun Allo (Qur’anic Schools and LGs) were Aliyu Yusuf (Galadima B), Aminu Marafa (Madawaki), Ibrahim Yusuf (Galadima A), Idris Abdullahi (T/ Wada A), Muhammad Mai’inji (Mayana B), Mukhtar Ibrahim (T/Wada B), Rabi’u Maiwada (Wanke da Janyau, Sadisu Ibrahim (Sabon Gari ) andSanusi Alaramma (Mayana A). This work could not have been possible without the cooperation of the staff of various Ministries and agencies involved in the study as well as the staff of the Almajiri schools who participated in the surveys. The commitment and even zeal of these people were really appreciated. Finallly, a special thanks to our AEDO colleagues: Professor Olokunle Frank Odumosu, Abba Walli Abdullahi, Professor Abdalla Uba Adamu, Andrew Dada, Abdul Aziz Tahiri, and Hussaina, Mohamed Rilwanu. We greatly appreciate everyone’s spirit of adventure and good work. Phyllis Forbes Creative Associates International Inc. Deepika Chawla, PhD Abt Associates Inc.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Almajiri State Education Sub-Accounts (ASESA) were developed for the capital cities of Kano and Gusau, in the states of Kano and Zamfara in Nigeria, to map the flow of funds as well as estimate all expenditures for the education of students in Tsangaya (Kano) and Makarantar Allo (Gusau) schools (Almajiri education) for 2007-2008.1 A follow-on to the State Education Accounts conducted in Kano and Gusau, the ASESA provide information on who is financing education, how much do they spend; how are funds distributed across different education providers, levels and activities and the uses of these funds. This report provides (i) a brief overview of the context of Almajiri education in Kano and Zamfara; (ii) describes the National and State Education Accounts (NEA and SEA) methodology, its adaptation to the State Education Sub-Accounts as well as the boundaries and classifications used for the implementation of the study; and (iii) presents the major findings as well as the conclusions and policy recommendations from this study. Methodology: Utilizing the State Education Accounts methodology, ASESA was an effort to pilot the use of this tool for the non-formal sector on a limited basis. National and State Education

Accounts (NEA and SEA) are a transparent framework for measuring education expenditures and comparing them to policy directions. The NEA and SEA provide a snapshot by gathering information on all spending, from public, private and donor sources and measures the ―financial pulse‖ of an education system answering four key questions: Who is financing education (Financing Sources)? How much do they spend (Financing Agents)? How are funds distributed across different uses? (Providers and Uses). Data are presented in standardized, user-friendly matrices that can be easily interpreted by policy makers and allow for comparisons of relevant indicators between states and internationally. ASESA in Kano and Gusau was organized and conducted by Creative Associates in partnership with Abt Associates and Association for Educational Development Options (AEDO) with assistance from the State Working Group of Kano and Zamfara. Data collection was conducted by this working group with support from AEDO and Creative Associates and involved 23 (11 in Kano and 13 in Gusau) data collectors. Both primary and secondary data was collected for the ASESA. All of the data for the public sector came from secondary sources, while primary studies were completed for collection of data from Almajiri schools. The school year covered was from September 2007 to August 2008. As part of the analytical process a relational data base was developed that could assist the government in forecasting future financing needs. Overview of Almajiri/traditional Qur’anic education in Kano and Gusau The Almajiri are pre-adolescent to early teen pupils who attend residential Islamic religious schools, which has only one curriculum, the Qur’an. Variously called the Tsangaya schools, the Almajiri schools or Makarantar Allo, these traditional Qur’anic schools are very common and numerous throughout northern Nigeria. The schools are led by an Imam or a Alaramma who is responsible for

1 For purposes of this report, the term Almajiri schools has been used to refer to the Tsangaya schools in Kano

and the Makarantar Allo schools in Gusau. The term Almajiri students has been used to refer to all pupils in these schools.


the care of the students (used interchangeably with pupils). The pupils are predominantly male, with many of them having been brought by their parents from villages to the school. Urban spread, however, has made it possible to have many girls as pupils, although they rarely go beyond the elementary stage of schooling. Students are assessed on a continuum of learning and based on their mastery of the Qur’an are thought of as being at the basic (Level 1) or more advanced levels (Level 2 or Higher level) of learning. Kano metropolis has 3,783 Almajiri schools with 1,560,611Almajiri students. Most of these schools are multilevel and have students at all levels of learning. While the schools are predominantly male, only 40% of the schools are for males only, 60 percent of the schools are co-educational. Thirty percent of all students in Almajiri schools in Kano are female. The female students are day scholars, only male students are enrolled in the boarding program. Forty four percent of these schools teach only the Qur’anic curriculum while 56% teach both the Qur’anic and Ilmi curriculum. A small percentage (5%) of schools also offer vocational training for their students. Gusau metropolis has 144 Almajiri schools with 54,983 students. As in Kano, most of these schools are multilevel predominantly male schools. However, only 17% of the schools are for males only, 83 percent of these schools are co-educational and about 30 percent of the students are female. Almost all (88%) Almajiri schools in Gusau teach both the Qur’anic and Ilmi curriculum, 16% teach only the Qur’anic curriculum and only 1% of the schools offer vocational training for their students. Almajiri Education Financing in Kano Metropolis area, Kano In 2007-2008, the total expenditure on Almajiri education by all sources in Kano Metropolis area, Kano, was 6.3 billion Naira (N=) to educate about 1,560,611Almajiri students. The average per Almajiri student expenditure was N=4,061. Financing Sources in Kano Metropolis: Almost ninety eight percent of financing (N=6.2 billion) for Almajiri education came from the private sector and the remaining 2% was contributed by the public sector. Of the public sector financing, Kano state government contributed 50.8%, while the local government contributed 49.2% of financing. Private Funds came from four sources, community, households, associations and NGOs. The community was the largest financing source contributing 78% of the total private funds (76% of all funding). Households contributed 21.9%, associations contributed 0.2%, and indigenous non-governmental organizations contributed less than 0.1 percent. There was no funding from the international donor agencies. Financing Agents: Overall, the public administration served as financing agent for/managed 2.4% of the funds made available to the Almajiri education sector in Kano, while the private sector managed 97.6% of the funds.

Providers and Uses: In Kano, providers of education for Almajiri were the Tsangaya schools. Students at different levels co-exist within the school and all expenditures are incurred for the schools as a whole. As a result the expenditure for Almajiri education could not be disaggregated by level of education. Overall, recurrent expenditure played a very important role representing about N=6 billion, i.e. 95.5 in percent of total expenditures. And almost 70% of this was paid to the teachers as incentives


(payments provided to teachers in lieu of salaries). Expenditure on maintenance of infrastructure amounted to N=195 million, i.e. 3.1 percent, while capital projects took up about 1.4 percent. The structure of the expenditures is variable depending on the sector. In the public sector, 59.4 percent of all expenditures were allocated to capital expenditure, while 40.6 went to recurrent expenditure. In the private sector, 3.2 percent of all expenditure was on maintenance of infrastructure, while 96.8 percent was spent on recurrent expenditure. Almajiri Education Financing in Gusau Metropolis Area, Zamfara In 2007-2008, the total expenditure on Almajiri education in Gusau Metropolis Area, Zamfara was 448 million Naira (N=) to educate about 54,983 Almajiri students. The average per Almajiri student expenditure was N=8,164. Financing Sources in Gusau, Zamfara: About 56% of financing (N=249million) for Almajiri education came from the public sector, 44% was contributed by the private sector and the remaining 0.2% from the rest of the world. Within the public sector, the State government contributed 64.7% of the total financing for Almajiri education in Gusau, while the local government contribution was 35.3%. Among all private sources of financing in education, the community contributed 71.1%, households contributed 27.6%, indigenous non-governmental organizations contributed 0.9% and associations contributed 0.4%. Financing Agents: Overall, the public administration served as financing agent for/managed 55.6% of the funds made available to the Almajiri education sector, while the private sector managed 44.2% of the funds and the international agencies managed 0.2%. Providers and Uses: In Gusau, the expenditure for Almajiri education could not be disaggregated by level of education. Providers of education for Almajiri were the Makarantar Allo schools. Overall, an examination of the structure of the expenditures incurred by all sectors in Gusau shows that recurrent expenditure played a very important role representing about N=359 million, i.e. 80% of total expenditures. Of this over 35% were for teacher incentives. Expenditure on maintenance of infrastructure amounted to about N=83 million, i.e. 18%, while capital projects took up about 2%. Comparative Analysis of Almajiri Education Expenditures in Kano and Gusau: The contribution of public, private and rest of the world to Kano and Gusau for expenditure on Almajiri education is N=6.3 billion and N=449 million, respectively. The number of Almajiri schools in Kano (3,783) is 26 times that in Gusau (144). However, the share of public contribution to Almajiri education in Gusau (N=249,757,342) is greater than in Kano (N=153,188,824), in spite of the higher number of Almajiri schools in Kano. Also, in spite of the smaller number of Almajiri schools and students, Gusau’s expenditure on education per Almajiri school (N=3,117,047), was higher than that of Kano (N=1,695,660). Likewise, the expenditure on education per Almajiri pupil (N=8,164) was higher than that of Kano (N=4,061). In both states, however, average expenditure per student for Almajiri education was less than that for formal education at the pre-primary and primary levels (N=8480 in Kano and N=23,751 in Zamfara, as estimated by the SEA Kano and Zamfara). The average incentives paid to teachers in Almajiri schools in Kano were N=114,143 per year and in Gusau the average was N=62,637 per year. This is


very close to the mean salary for teachers in the preprimary and primary schools in Kano and Zamfara. In Kano, the mean salary for pre-primary teachers was N=151,145 and N=219,534. In Zamfara the average for pre-primary and primary school teachers was N=66,592 and N=86,625 respectively. Conclusions: ASESA data indicates that both Kano and Zamfara state governments make a small contribution for the education of Almajiri children. While Zamfara State government’s contribution of a little over N=249 million was only 0.5% of the state budget, but it constituted over 50% of the total spending on Almajiri students in Gusau. The contribution of public, private and rest of the world to Kano and Gusau expenditure on Almajiri education is N=6.3 billion and N=449 million, respectively. Majority of the funding for Almajiri in Kano came from the private sector, while majority of the funding in Gusau came from the public sector. Among all private sources of financing in Almajiri education, the community contributed over 70% in both states, with the household coming second. In Kano state, the public sector spent most of its resources on capital projects, while the private sector spent most of its resources on recurrent expenditure. Very little was spent on Maintenance in Kano. On the other hand, in Gusau, the public sector spent most of its resources on maintenance of infrastructure, while the private sector spent most of its resources on recurrent expenditure. The communities in Kano and Gusau were primarily responsible for incentives to teachers which replaced teacher salaries. Recommendations for future conduct of ASESA: The process of preparing the ASESA was very inclusive involving personnel not only from the relevant public sector offices but also significant stakeholders. The stakeholders included the proprietors of Almajiri schools and teachers at Almajiri schools. The intense involvement of the working group in data collection and analysis was an education process for most people and has added to their capacity to conduct future ASESA with minimal technical assistance. The Technical Assistance team contributed to the success of the data collection exercise. It is recommended that a permanent ASESA Working Group be established in preparation for repeating the study when necessary. It is also recommended that future groups continue to work with the proprietors of Almajiri schools to develop a survey instrument for collection of information on expenditures in the schools as well as include them in the analysis of results. This increases transparency and stakeholder ownership of the process, while building capacity.


1 Introduction

1.1 Educational Context in Nigeria

Nigeria has had a long history of providing education for its citizens and was considered a leader in the field of education in Africa until the mid-twentieth century. However, following a string of political and economic shocks in the late 1960s, the resources allocated to the education sector started declining and as a result, urban-rural and gender disparities in enrolment and educational outcomes started to increase. In order to stem this deterioration and in recognition of the role of education in economic development, the Government of Nigeria put in place a comprehensive National Policy on Education in 1977. Despite the many reforms initiated by successive governments since then, the pressures on education financing have not been alleviated and financing continues to remain a major issue in the Nigerian education system. Education in Nigeria is financed by both public and private sources, but data on education spending – including public spending – continues to be fragmented and unreliable. On the public side, the problem seems to be the quantum of financial resources committed by the different tiers of government to education. The financial commitment and the priority given to education by governments are usually reflected in budgetary allocations, but the decentralized governance system does not allow this data to be picked up with accuracy and ease. Following the fiscal federalism and systemic decentralization, the state and local governments have assumed a significant proportion of public spending on education, and in 1998, aggregate levels of state and local government expenditure on education for Nigeria as a whole were estimated to be equivalent to 17 percent and 25 percent of total state and local government expenditures respectively. However, these figures are very broad estimates and based on a small sample of state and local government data. The recently completed State Education Accounts in the states of Kano and Zamfara have demonstrated that 29% of the State budget in Kano and 18% in Zamfara have been expended on the provision of formal education from preprimary to tertiary levels. However, not all school-going children are enrolled in public or private schools (formal schools following the national curriculum). In Nigeria, especially in the northern states, there is a strong non-formal religious sector as well. Many children in these states attend these schools in addition to the formal school, but for several others the non-formal religious schools are the only source of education. These schools can be grouped into Quranic schools and the Almajiri schools. While now, as a result of the SEAs data is available on the formal school system, and there is a severe dearth of data on education expenditures in the non-formal and informal sectors leading to a weak basis for policy planning. Recognizing that the information base is very weak for debates on such fundamental issues as the adequacy of funding for education, sources of funding, efficiency and equity of the use of public


funds, costs of system expansion and the appropriate mix of public and private (household) expenditures, a new tool was needed that would enable a detailed flow-of-funds analysis for the Almajiri schools (Tsangaya/Makarantar Allo) leading to the conduct of the Almajiri State Education Sub Account (ASESA).

1.2 What are Almajiri State Education Sub-Accounts?

Almajiri State Education Sub Account (ASESA) utilizes the National and State Education Accounts (NEA and SEA) methodology, to map the flow of funds and the expenditures incurred on the education of the Almajiri children. Like the National and State Education Accounts (NEA and SEA), the ASESA can be described as a transparent method for collecting and analyzing data on actual allocations and expenditures of resources in the education sector and linking those allocations and expenditures system reforms. The ASESA framework closely follows the National and State Education Account (NEA and SEA) framework, and maps the flow of funds from sources to intermediary or financing agents and finally to the uses. The ASESA help detail expenditures by different players in one component of the education sector – the education of Almajiri children in the cities of Kano and Gusau – and thus provide a more complete and transparent view of total spending, both public and private, on education in the state. The NEA and SEA, facilitate assessment and evaluation of the performance of the education system by providing information on the overall level of resources (public, private and external), how these resources flow through the education system and how they are used. They provide data for evaluation of sources and uses of education funding (public, private and external) against a set of policy objectives, thereby providing evidence-based methods of determining if education funds are being spent in support of these objectives. The use of NEA and SEA involves official stakeholders in determining which aspect of the sources and uses is important, and provides the means to measure policy impact on a factual rather than an anecdotal basis. NEA and SEA use standard classification of data, which contributes to benchmarking performance and sharing information more easily within country and between countries. The main objective of the National and State Education Accounts is to create a standard format of accounting for educational expenditures that establishes the platform for technical analysis of the performance of the education sector and permits comparisons of relevant indicators between states and internationally. In keeping with this objective, the goal of the ASESA is to provide a framework that helps policy-makers, financiers, and providers of education answer questions that help improve the performance of the education system and improve the efficiency of the sector. Furthermore, since the ASESA uses the same standardized format as that for NEA and SEA, the information that it provides allows meaningful interstate comparisons and comparison to the formal sectors.


1.3 Why conduct the Sub Account for Almajiri Education?

The states of Kano and Zamfara have been leaders within Nigeria in piloting innovations and were the first to express an interest in the implementation of State Education Accounts (SEA). The SEA in Kano was completed in 2007 and that for Zamfara has been recently (2008) completed. The SEAs in Kano and Zamfara focused on the formal education sector. However, given the large number of students attending school in the non-formal sector in these states, it is necessary to know the expenditures on education in this sector as well to get a complete picture of total spending on education in the state. There is very little information available on the financing of education in the non-formal sector, particularly for the education of Almajiri children. Traditional Qur’anic schools that educate the Almajiri children also known as the Tsangaya schools and Makarantar schools were traditionally supported by the rich patrons of the Imams and the parents of students attending boarding schools. However, over the years the balance has shifted with children in the boarding schools becoming the sole responsibility of the Alaramma. The teacher may or may not have the resources to support these children, and the children often have to resort to begging to support themselves. Recognizing the problems and challenges faced by these schools, the State Governments of Kano and Zamfara are trying to put together policies and programs to help train and empower the Alaramma and improve the education provided to these children. However, policy makers and stakeholders are hampered by the lack of data on how much it costs to educate children in these schools. The State Education Subaccount for Almajiri Education (ASESA) is an extension of the State Education Accounts (SEA). It utilizes the SEA methodology to collect data from the public and private sectors on the costs attributable to education of children in the Tsangaya schools in Kano and Gusau Metropolis areas. The study is an extension of the recently completed SEA in Kano and Zamfara and provides an opportunity to AEDO2 as well as the MOE in Kano and Zamfara to utilize the capacity developed to conduct an SEA and analyze data. It was also an opportunity to pilot the use of the methodology to estimate expenditures in the non-formal sector. This report, called the State Education Sub Account for Qur’anic Education in Kano and Gusau, will answer the following questions about the financing of education in these schools: Who is financing education in Almajiri schools in Kano and Gusau? How much are they spending? What are the uses of these funds? How do the financial flows compare in Kano and Gusau? What are the policy implications for expenditures on Qur’anic education? The rest of this report is organized as follows: Chapter 2 provides an overview of the Nigerian Education system; Chapter 3 presents the National and State Education Accounts (NEA and SEA)

2 AEDO (Association for Education Development Options) an NGO formed with USAID support under the SEA project, is comprised of a team of five Nigerian consultants: Prof. Abdalla Uba Adamu, Andrew Dada, Prof. Olakunle Frank Odumosu (Kunle), Abba Wali Abdullahi (SEA coordinator) and Abdul Aziz Tahiri. AEDO works in close collaboration with the Creative/Abt Technical Assistance team. A local coordinator, Ms. Hussaina Mohamed, has been hired to support the team and liaise with the government in Zamfara.


methodology as well as the boundaries and classifications used for the implementation of the study; Chapter 4 reports on the major findings from the data collected for Kano metropolis, Kano; Chapter 5 presents a discussion of the data from Gusau, Zamfara; and chapter 6 presents a comparative analysis of expenditures in Kano and Gusau as well as an economic analysis of educational expenditures from a macro economic perspective, and Chapter 7 contains the conclusions and policy recommendations from this study.


2 Understanding the Traditional Qur’anic (Almajiri) Education in Kano and Zamfara States

Various agencies in Nigeria seemed to estimate that there as many as six million children out of formal schooling. In Northern Nigeria, many of these children actually attend what would be considered a non-formal education system called Tsangaya schools (boarding school) or the Makarantar Allo schools. The pupils in these schools are usually referred to as ―Almajirai‖ (plural for the ―Almajiri‖ singular). For purposes of this report the term Almajiri Education will be used to describe the education provided to Almajiri children and Almajiri schools will be used interchangeably with traditional Qur’anic schools to refer to theTsangaya schools in Kano and Makarantar Allo in Gusau. The rest of this section provides a description of the Almajiri system of education.

2.1 The Context of Traditional Qur’anic Education in Kano and Zamfara States

The term Almajirai (singular: Almajiri) is actually derived from the Arabic word Al-mahajirun, meaning migrants. The Koran has in several verses enjoined those who have to give not only sadaqat, but also to give to Al-mahajirun (see for instance 2/270, 274; 3/92, 3/134, etc). The Al-mahajirun referred to in the Qur’an were the people who gave up their wealth and families to follow the Prophet Muhammad during the Hijira from Mecca to Medina. They arrived Medina with no housing arrangement, no relatives or families and no immediate means of livelihood. This was why those who had the means were enjoined to extend generosity to the migrants, not only as a religious solidarity, but also as a religious duty to reduce the hardship suffered by the Al-mahajirun. The student studying Qur’an in the early days of Islam in West Africa, shared the same characteristics with the Al-mahajirun of Medina. They had left their homes and families, had no means of livelihood since they were devoted to their studies and had no housing of their own since they were on the move. Over the years, Al-mahajirun developed into what we know today as Al-majirai and Al-majiranci (the act of being Almajiri) in Northern Nigeria. Almajiranci is a concept, peculiar to Northern Nigeria and some parts of the neighboring West African countries, in which a student from an early age, leaves his home and family to live and study under a teacher. The school where they study is called Tsangaya. The teacher himself is not necessarily resident in one particular place or town. Both students and teachers are engaged full time in the teaching and learning process. But unlike what is obtainable in Western form of education, the teacher in the almajiranci is not employed by anybody in particular. Yet it may not be entirely correct to describe him as self-employed, as that could mean that he is fully responsible for his means of sustenance. Initially, responsibility for the care of Almajiranci lay with the community. When a mallam comes into a community, the community provides him with accommodation, food and where to set up his Tsangaya. In return, the mallam would allow the children of the host community to enroll in his


school. The care of the guest mallam and his almajirai could thus be explained as part of reciprocity in which the children of this host community would also be taken care of by another community (since the children travel between communities). All the Mallam has to do was to report to district or village or ward head of such community, who will make arrangements for accommodation and feeding for the Mallam and his pupils/students. The mobile nature of the schooling is predicated upon the assumption that a collegiate system of learning is more effective than a non-residential regime. There is also the parental (and community) belief that the further away from home and family ties the children are, the more likely they are to focus on their studies. Contrary to popular beliefs about the Tsangaya, the children are not just dumped with the Mallams (the Alaramma) or the Head Teacher. They are usually brought by their parents and the parents in most cases often provide sustenance for the children. This varies, but the average is about N5,000 – meant to take care of small needs (personal hygiene, feeding, etc). The Alaramma usually provides the meals. Not all Tsangayu allow their students to beg – although they allow them to earn legitimate income through small jobs on school-free days (Thursdays and Fridays). In northern Nigeria, many of the children not enrolled in the formal school system actually attend what would be considered a non-formal education system called Tsangaya (boarding school). The pupils in these schools are usually referred to as ―Almajirai‖ (plural for the ―Almajiri‖ singular). The term has double meaning. Used to refer to a male pre-adolescent and late teenage student in a Tsangaya it means ―wandering seeker of knowledge in a residential college‖. However, it is also used to refer to old women who beg (―almajira‖). These are strict Qur’anic study center with a head teacher (Alaramma) and pupils ranging from 15 to 500 or more. Traditionally, the unique nature of these schools is that they are male and the children are usually from different localities (villages) who take up residence with the Alaramma to learn the Qur’an, with at the lower level of the schooling system is the only curriculum. At advanced levels, other books of Islamic theology are added. However, this study found that with urbanization, these schools also have non-residential students studying in these schools and a significant proportion of the non-resident students were female. In addition, religious instruction in Kano and Zamfara is provided in the more formal setting of Islamiyya schools – a hybrid educational structure that emphasizes Islamic religious instruction within the context for formal structure of national system of education. Created as a bridge between the formal and Islamic education system, the Islamiyya Schools were first introduced in Kano, an initiative that was privately sponsored by then left-leaning political party, Northern Elements Progressive Congress (NEPU) in the 1960s. Currently found both in Kano and Zamfara states, these schools formed a part of the SEA studies in Kano and Zamfara and have not been included in this study. The Islamiyya schools have a more diversified curriculum and a tracking system that allows some mobility for pupils who finish these schools and can get further qualifications up to the university.


This differs from the Tsangaya Almajirai in that for the vast majority in Tsangaya/Almajiri schools, the schooling ends when the finish their Qur’anic studies (usually by demonstrating competence in memorizing the Qur’an at the end of a study period that could last up to six years of residency). However, the Islamiyya schools due to their diversified curriculum are not considered on the same level as Tsangaya, and the traditional Qur’anic schooling system, Tsangaya persists. Fig 1 shows the structure of the system in relation to National Policy on Education. Fig. 1 – Traditional Qur’anic (Tsangaya) System of Education – Model for Kano and Zamfara3

BabbakuLetter recognition

FarfaruVowel and word

formation

ZubeFluid recitation of

Qur’an

HaddatuMemorizing the

Qur’an

Traditional Qura’nic school

Secondary

Elementary

Madrassa (Ilmi)Focus

JurisprudenceHadith StudiesGrammar and

Lexicon

Advanced

Post Secondary

Gardi--

Alaramma

IlmAlaramma

Titibiri--

Primary--

Sauka (graduation)

Kolo--

Kindergarten

Basic Education

Post-Basic Education

Tertiary

Qur’anic University(Kano only)

Structure of Traditional Qur’anic Schooling in Kano and Zamfara

National Policy Track

Makarantar Ilimi

3 Traditional Quranic Schools that educate Almajiri children are know as the Tsangaya schools in Kano and the

Makarantar Allo in Zamfara


The Tsangaya education is divided into two – an elementary portion called Kutb, and a more advanced portion called Madrassa. The term ―Tsangaya‖ more often refers to the elementary section; although if a Tsangaya has both sections, it is still referred to as Tsangaya. The Madrassa may not be part of the physical structure of the Tsangaya; in fact it could be as small as an ante-chamber of a household (zaure) for it caters to very few advanced students who are interested in deepening their understanding of Islam. The actual Tsangaya school is further divided according to organizational structure (based on pupils’ physical stages of development) and levels of study. 2.1.1 Organizational Structure of Tsangaya

The broad organizational structure divides the pupils of Tsangaya schools into three broad groups. The first are children from 2-11 and who are called kolaye (pl. tiny ones; kolo is singular). Too young to be away from their parents these pupils are usually drawn from the community and not real candidates for the Tsangaya. It is only when they begin to approach pre-adolescence at the age of about 8 (to 11) or so that they are considered Tsangaya pupils and can migrate to a ―proper‖ Tsangaya. They support themselves during their studies (which are quite rigorous) with light household chores – washing cars and bikes, sweeping courtyards and atriums, etc. Some often beg on the streets – and it is the sight of these few who beg that creates the impression from outsiders of an army of ―Almajiri street children‖ roaming the streets of northern Nigerian large cities. The second grouping of the pupils is Titibiri which comprises of pupils aged approximately from 12 to about 18, while the third grouping is Gardi which is a young adult. Both the Titibiri and Gardi are old enough to seek for larger and more demanding jobs in the community, and therefore combine their studies with a specific occupation that gives them more considerable financial independence that latter-stage kolaye. The three stages are spread out in Tsangaya schooling in the approximately six years it takes to complete the study of the Qur’an – the sole curriculum of the Tsangaya before the Madrassa. Instruction in the schools is based mainly of five months of intensive academic work from the beginning of the dry season up to the period before the rainy season. The moment the second rains fall, most Tsangayu wind up, and the pupils go back to the various villages to farm. They return to the Tsangaya after the harvest – but not all return to the same Tsangaya they left; they could move to another and continue their studies there. The classical structure of the Tsangaya is that they were located on the outskirts of towns (Borno and Zamfara models) near farmlands that are devoid of any activity during the dry season – thus providing a conducive atmosphere for learning. They get their sustenance from the harvested food stuff, because the dry season is actually the harvesting season also. In contemporary times, however, the Tsangaya is often located in inner urban areas—giving them direct access to food and casual labor. The weekly school routine excludes Thursdays and Fridays which are lesson-free days. Saturdays, Mondays and Tuesdays are for pupils to concentrate on reading the Qur’an. Once they master the portions given to them—and can demonstrate so by reading in front of the Alaramma so that he can ―examine them‖— they ―wash‖ the verses (clean them off the wooden slate with water; the portions


having been written with water-based ink which the pupils made themselves) and write out new lessons on Sundays and Tuesdays. Actual daily routines differ, but follow a general start period of 5.00 a.m. to about 8.00 a.m. after which the pupils go on break, and return at about 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m., then prayers, and break; and from back to class from 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.; and the night session from 8.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight. The Kolaye and Titibiri leave at the end of the 6.00 p.m., while the Gardi class can stay for the night session. While historically Borno (the area of Borno State in present-day Nigeria) was considered the home of the quality Tsangaya learning, Kano (Kano State) had over the years become the focus of Tsangaya migration – principally because of its economic power which exceeds that of other northern Nigerian States. 2.1.2 Academic Structure of Tsangaya

The beginning class, kolo, is also the beginning of the academic structure of the Tsangaya which starts with understanding of the basic Arabic alphabet. In Kano, this stage has been domesticated such that Arabic alphabets were localized using local language visual equivalents to make it easier for they young learner to understand. The emphasis is not on acquiring enough literacy to speak Arabic, but to be able to read the Qur’an – the only curriculum at this stage. The second school stage is Farfaru – beginning of word formation and understanding the vowels of the Arabic alphabet. This actually signals the beginning of what can be considered elementary schooling – progression being determine by the personal development of the pupil (e.g. speech capabilities). Once the pupil has sufficient grasp of the vowels and word formation, he begins studying the Qur’an proper in a third stage called Zube. The end of Zube is Sauka – graduation, in which a student demonstrates his training by reading any portion of the Qur’an shown to him. The ―certificate‖ is a brilliantly colored wooden slate (allo) with elaborate calligraphic borders containing portions of the Qur’an. The student, after the graduation ceremony, often goes through the community, showing off his certificate, and receiving graduating gifts from appreciative members of the community. After this, he finds a job in the community – shining shoes, bus conductor, selling fruits, etc. Rarely do graduates of the schools actually beg in the streets—the begging portion being done basically during the study periods before graduation. Zube merges into a fourth stage, Haddatu, the process of memorizing the Qur’an. For while at Zube stage the pupil is required to demonstrate fluid skills in reading any portion of the Qur’an (due to his having successfully passed through the earlier stages), Haddatu is a more advanced process requiring the memorization of the Qur’an in a piecemeal manner until the entire 114 chapters have been committed to memory. While many pupils can actually graduate at this level (second graduation) and move on to the Madrassa, Haddatu is for those dedicated to memorizing the Qur’an, and who may or may not proceed to the Madrassa. An intermediary stage between Haddatu and the final stage in advanced


Qur’anic studies is Tishe/Tilawa,4 which is a revision period in which the student goes over the Haddatu stage again and again until he perfects it. The final stage in the advanced study of the Qur’an is Satu, in which the student demonstrates ability to write any portion of the Qur’an from memory – in contrast to Haddatu where the skill displayed is vocalized memory recall. The mere fact of having committed the Qur’an to the memory earns the learner the exalted and highly respected sobriquet of Hafeez. The learner at this stage has reached the Gardi stage of physical development and often combines this memorization process with some structured manual labor to earn money, e.g. bus conductor, shoe-shiner, fruit-seller, etc. Once he commits the Qur’an to memory and graduates, and can demonstrate his ability to reproduce the Qur’an from memory without recourse to the actual printed Qur’an, he becomes an Alaramma (a corrupted word from an Arabic expression Allah Yarhamka meaning May God bless you). Graduates of this system were often referred to as Gardi Alaramma. The Gardi Alaramma may nor may not proceed to the next level of schooling – the Madrassa, or Ilm Schools. Indeed many do not go beyond, being contended with their Hafeez status as Gardi Alaramma. Students who did not attain this level of Islamic learning, but have considerable understanding of the Qur’an (i.e. from the Zube portion), may also proceed to the Madrassa. The instruction in the northern Nigerian Madrassa is divided into three ―faculties‖. The first is Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), then Hadith studies (saying of the Prophet Muhammad), and the last stage is Arabic Grammar and Lexicon during which major classical books of Arabic literature are perused by the learner. The graduates of the Madrassa are also referred to as Alaramma. A literary and intellectual rivalry in fact exists between the two types of Alaramma. The Gardi Alaramma considers his schooling purer because his curriculum was only the Qur’an, and frowned at any other extraneous material in the study of Islam. The Madrassa Alaramma on the other hand might, or might not be a Hafeez, but feels often superior to the Gardi Alaramma because of his expanded curriculum which makes him more knowledgeable of Islam. They often do work in tandem, however, especially during the Tafsir (Qur’anic exegesis), where the Gardi Alaramma would recite the Qur’an, and the Madrassa Alaramma would translate and explain the meaning. The Gardi Alaramma clearly could not translate the meaning of the Qur’an, but can recite it very well in its correct grammatical and linguistic form; the Madrassa Alaramma may or may not be able to recite the Qur’an from memory with the same skill as the Gardi Alaramma, but he understands Arabic as a language and can therefore interpret the Qur’an and situate his interpretation within the context of other forms of Islamic knowledge.

4 Both words refer to revision, but are used in a dialectically different manner in northern Nigeria. Tishe means starting all over again to master a process; Tilawa means reciting over and over again to master the process.


3 Almajiri State Education Sub-Account Methodology

The objective of this study is to conceptualize and develop Almajiri State Education Sub Accounts (ASESA), using the State Education Accounts methodology, for the Almajiri education sector in the state of Kano and Zamfara in Nigeria for the 2007-2008 school year, so that it can be used as an effective policy tool to suggest sustainable pathways for a more equitable, efficient and effective education system in Kano and Zamfara. Conducted by Creative Associates in partnership with Abt Associates and AEDO with assistance from the State Working Group of Kano and Zamfara, the focus of this effort is to provide a comprehensive picture of expenditures on Almajiri education in the urban cities of Kano (Kano State) and Gusau (Zamfara State), using a policy-relevant description of the flows of financing through the education system. In developing ASESA for Kano and Gusau, particular emphasis was placed on the inclusion of all stakeholders involved in Almajiri education financing – public, private, international donors, etc. – so as to ensure that policymakers are better informed about the entire Almajiri education sector. The presentation of results of this exercise is intended to be in an easy-to-understand format, such that those without specific knowledge of economics or finance are able to understand the implications of the results. However, before going to the results of this exercise it is important to understand the concepts and the methodology of the SEA and the boundaries and classifications that defined this exercise. This chapter describes the concepts and methodology used in the development of SEA, and then describes the methods used for conducting ASESA in Kano and Zamfara metropolis in states of Kano and Zamafara in Nigeria.

3.1 What are Almajiri State Education Sub-Accounts?

Almajiri State Education Sub-Accounts (ASESA) can be described as a transparent method for collecting and analyzing data on actual allocations and expenditures of resources in one component of the education sector and linking those allocations and expenditures to system reforms – in this case the education of Almajiri school children in the cities of Kano and Gusau. The ASESA framework closely follows the National and State Education Account (NEA and SEA) framework, and maps the flow of funds from sources to intermediary or financing agents and finally to the providers of service, but for the specific focus. The rest of this section describes the NEA methodology and its adaptation to the SEA and ASESA. 3.1.1 National Education Accounts

National Education Accounts (NEA) was developed as a tool for improved financial information within the context of comprehensive education reform programs. The NEAs provide a picture of the flows and uses of funds throughout the education system and identify roles played by central government, local district governments, international and indigenous donors, private contributors and households in financing education. NEAs are modeled after National Health Accounts which have been conducted in over 60 countries.

The National Education Accounts can be described as a transparent method for collecting and analyzing data on actual allocations and expenditures of resources and linking those expenditures and allocation to system reforms. National Education Accounts (NEA) provides a framework for


measuring total – public, private, and donor – national education expenditures. It organizes, tabulates, and presents information on education spending in a standard set of tables, in a user-friendly format that can be easily understood and interpreted by policymakers, including those without a background in economics, and allows for international comparisons and in-country comparisons over time. The National Education Accounts (NEA) framework uses the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) classifications used in the UOE (UIS/OECD/EUROSTAT) framework.5 6 Data are collected and analyzed using the basic categories and matrices developed for the NEA. ISCED classifications of expenditure categories are used to ensure completeness of data collected and to allow for eventual international comparisons. While the data collected are entered into a standard set of tables there is some flexibility to add in subcategories to allow for collection and analysis of data that are specific to each country. The NEA can contribute to evidence-based policy decisions and can enable more transparency that promotes stakeholder involvement. Simply put, the NEA will provide a snapshot of the education system by measuring the flow of funds through four categories of entities and answering four key questions:

1. Sources of Financing: Where does the money come from? The NEA will examine sources of financing such as the Ministry of Finance, households, and donors.

2. Financing Agents: What is the flow of funds? The NEA will examine financing agents, the intermediaries who receive funds from sources and use them to pay for services such as a Ministry of Education, district governments, communities or denominational and private school networks.

3. Providers: To whom did the money go? The NEA will examine providers of services or activities related to education, such as schools, tutors, universities.

4. Functions: What service was actually produced? The NEA will examine functions or services or activities that providers deliver, such as classroom education, textbooks, tutoring, etc.

In addition to determining how much each financing source spends on education, NEAs carefully track the flow of funds from one actor to another, such as the distribution of funds from the Ministry of Education (MoE) to each government education provider and by level of education. The flexibility of the NEA framework also allows for specific detailed analyses of education spending on targeted populations or specific levels, such as services provided for basic education. The NEA essentially measures the ―financial pulse‖ of a national education system by answering questions such as:

Who in the country is financing education services? 5 World Health Organization. Guide to producing national health accounts with special applications for low-

income and middle income countries. 6 Schmidt, Pascala . A short guide to Educational expenditure statistics. Eurostat - education, training and

culture. European Commission 2003. Available at the following URL: http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/dsis/edtcs/library?l=/public/unesco_collection/methodology.


How much do they spend? How are funds distributed across different education providers, levels and activities? Who benefits from these services? (e.g., are urban populations benefiting more than rural

groups?) Simply put, NEA allows for greater transparency of expenditures in the country’s education systems. Reports that are typically generated using the data estimated in NEA are matrices that describe flows of funds as follows:

1. From original sources to financing agents 2. From financing agents to provider types; 3. From provider types to different categories of services (e.g., primary, junior and senior

secondary, tertiary education, administration) 4. From provider types to different line items of spending (e.g., salaries, textbooks,

uniforms, meal plans, etc.) The convention used is to estimate the quantity of the flow of funds (for a particular year) and to insert that quantity in a cell, where the column is the source of the funds and the row is the recipient of the funds. The total of all flows from each source is the column total, and the total of all flows to each use is the row total. The grand total in each matrix should be identical to that of all other matrices. By providing valuable information such as status reports on the current use of financial resources, monitoring education expenditure trends, and reporting on globally accepted indicators to allow for comparison of the country’s education system performance relative to that of other countries, the NEA can contribute significantly to the decision making process. NEA methodology can also be used to make financial projections of a country’s education systems’ needs and highlight equity imbalances in distribution of expenditures. NEA estimates for a particular year would give a snapshot of the flow of funds through the education system for that year. Once NEA has been completed for two or more years, it would be possible to estimate and analyze the trends in spending by different sources, different financing agents, different uses, etc., enabling policymakers to understanding the dynamics of financing in the education sector. NEA reports are not intended to serve as solely academic exercises that may or may not be used by policymakers or that may collect dust in the office shelves of government officials; rather, they are intended to be an integral report, as is the national census and other government surveys, to the policy process and debate in a country. By revealing the actual ―financial health‖ of a country’s education system and when assessed in combination with other types of data (e.g. poverty levels, geographic distribution, enrollment figures, etc), NEA can provide data needed to help decision-makers determine, based on ―evidence,‖ whether their country education funds are being spent efficiently, effectively, and equitably. Since NEA is an internationally utilized and recognized methodology, a country’s assessment of its education spending patterns can be compared to that of other countries – this is of particular value to policymakers because they can learn from the spending patterns and education system outcomes of countries with similar socio-economic backgrounds. Such comparative information can help when setting performance objectives and benchmarks. If implemented on a regular basis, NEA can track trends in financing of education. Such temporal data is useful for monitoring and evaluation purposes and for making financial projections of a country’s education financing needs.


3.1.2 Adaptation of NEA to SEA

State Education Accounts (SEA), a subaccount of NEA, is in effect NEA conducted at the state level rather than the national level. As a first step, SEA lays down clear, unambiguous definitions of the boundary conditions for an expenditure item to be classified as an educational expense. In doing so, SEA goes beyond the traditional classification of expenditures by institutions to a more functional classification of expenditure by type of expense. In the second step, SEA identifies the sources that finance education expenditures, the intermediaries that allocate the funds amongst different providers, and the providers of education, so as to avoid double-counting of funds. At the same time, SEA distinguishes between different providers of education and focus on the mechanisms used to transfer funds to these providers. Finally, and most importantly, the SEA framework provides a technical basis for analyzing the financial implications that education sector reforms would have on service providers and financiers of education alike. In short, SEA provides an effective tool that can be used to review the outcomes of education policies and to suggest the impact of potential policies on performance of an education system. 3.1.3 Adaptation of SEA to ASESA

ASESA is an application of the NEA/SEA methodology to one component of education – the Almajiri education. ASESA provides information on the overall level of resources (public, private and external), how these resources flow through the Almajiri education system and how they are used. ASESA provides the data for evaluation of sources and uses of education funding (public, private and external). The main objective of the Almajiri State Education Sub Accounts is to create a standard format of accounting expenditures that establishes the platform for technical analysis of the performance of the Almajiri education sector and permits comparisons of relevant indicators between states. The ASESA help detail expenditures by different players in the Almajiri education sector and thus provides a more complete and transparent view of total spending, both public and private, on Almajiri education. In keeping with this objective, the goal of the ASESA is to provide a framework that helps policy-makers, financiers, and providers of Almajiri education answer questions that help improve the performance of the Almajiri education system and improve the efficiency of the sector. Furthermore, since the ASESA uses a standardized format, the information provided allows for meaningful state comparisons.

3.2 Implementation of Almajiri State Education Sub Accounts

The Almajiri State Education Accounts conducted in Kano and Gusau adapted the National and State Education Accounts methodology to study the flow of funds from sources to users within the Almajiri education sector in the two states. Data were collected, as appropriate, at the state and local levels. The ASESA answers the following questions about the financing of education in these schools:

Who is financing education in Almajiri schools in Kano and Gusau? How much are they spending?


Where are they spending? What kinds of goods and services are being covered? How do the financial flows compare from Kano to Gusau? How do financial flows compare to formal education in Kano and Gusau or Kano State and

Zamfara State? What are the policy implications for expenditures on Qur’anic education?

Below is a brief description of the implementation of the ASESA, the identification and organization of data and how data were collected, analyzed and disseminated. Separate subaccounts were conducted to collect and analyze data from Kano and Gusau. Each effort is described in turn. 3.2.1 Conducting Almajiri State Education Sub Account (ASESA) in Kano

(Kano State)

As earlier stated, the study is an extension of the State Education Accounts (SEA) recently completed in Kano. A subaccount of the SEA, it utilizes the SEA methodology to collect data from the public and private sectors. The study utilized and further built the capacity that has been enhanced in the MOE of Kano State to conduct the studies and analyze data. Data was collected, as appropriate, at the state and local levels. Below is a brief description of who implemented the ASESA in Kano, the identification and organization of data and how data was collected, analyzed and disseminated. Identification of a Working Group in Kano

Keeping in view the fact that ASESA is a tool for use by the government for a systematic assessment of the flow of funds in the Almajiri education system, a Kano State Working Group (SWG) comprised primarily of representatives from various government agencies whose missions relate to education and public finance and other high-level stakeholders such as academics in the Almajiri education sector and Malams of the schools was formed. These stakeholders were engaged at various points throughout the ASESA project activities, to help identify data sources, to collect and review data; and to use ASESA results to develop or implement education policies. The SWG members were oriented to the ASESA process and included as necessary for the successful implementation of the ASESA process. A list of members of the State Working Group who participated in the ASESA is included in Appendix 1.

Sources of data in Kano

Sources of data for ASESA can be grouped into three broad categories: public sector data, private sector data and data from rest of the world. Each is discussed briefly below:

The Public sector data was includes government records from relevant agencies at State and Local government levels. At the state level the agencies included are the state ministries of Finance, Education (SMOE) and Office of the Special Adviser on Education. The local governments include all the 8 local government councils in Kano metropolis.

The Private sector as a source of financing for Almajiri education includes direct out-of-

pocket spending by households on educating children, and the contribution of private investors, communities, agencies and individuals. It also includes the contributions made by local/indigenous NGOs. The assessment of contributions of private sources was made through a survey of the Almajiri schools.


Rest of the World data includes information from multi-lateral/bilateral development

partners (donors), international NGOs and charitable organizations. In the 2007-08 school year time period there were no international NGOs and charitable organizations involved with Almajiri education-related activities working in Kano metropolis.

3.2.2 Conducting Almajiri State Education Sub Account (ASESA) in Gusau

(Zamfara State)

In Gusau, the study is also an extension of the State Education Accounts (SEA) recently completed in Zamfara State. Data was collected, as appropriate, at the state and local levels. Below is a brief description of who implemented the ASESA in Gusau, the identification and organization of data and how data was collected, analyzed and disseminated. Identification of a Working Group in Gusau (Zamfara)

A State Working Group (SWG) was also formed in Gusau comprised primarily of representatives from various government agencies whose missions relate to education and public finance and other high-level stakeholders such as academics in the Almajiri education sector and Malams of the schools. These stakeholders were also engaged at various points throughout the ASESA project activities, to help identify data sources, to collect and review data; and to use ASESA results to develop or implement education policies. The SWG members were oriented to the ASESA process and included as necessary for the successful implementation of the ASESA process. A list of members of the State Working Group who participated in the ASESA is included in Appendix 1.

Sources of data in Gusau (Zamfara)

Sources of data for ASESA can be grouped into three broad categories: public sector data, private sector data and data from rest of the world. Each is discussed briefly below:

The Public sector data was includes government records from relevant agencies at State and Local government levels. At the state level the agencies included are the state ministries of Finance, Education (SMOE), Directorate of Islamic Organizations and Qur’anic schools development, Agency for Qur’anic Tajweed and Memorization Board and State Scholarship Board. The Gusau local government was the only local government council sampled in Gusau.

The Private sector as a source of financing for Almajiri education includes direct out-of-

pocket spending by households on educating children, and the contribution of private investors, communities, agencies and individuals. It also includes the contributions made by local/indigenous NGOs. The assessment of contributions of private sources was made through a survey of the Almajiri schools.

Rest of the World data includes information from multi-lateral/bilateral development

partners (donors), international NGOs and charitable organizations. In the 2007-08 school year time period there were no international NGOs and charitable organizations involved with Almajiri education-related activities working in Kano metropolis.

A map of the flow of funds within the Almajiri education sector was developed to guide the team in their understanding of the flows and to ensure that all organizations involved with financing education were surveyed. The map presented in Figure 3.1 (next page) reflects the flow of funds


from the public, private and the rest of the world sources through intermediaries to providers of education. It also shows the uses or the expenditures on education related services. 3.2.3 Boundaries and Classifications

ASESA is a method to analyze the flow of funds within the educational system based on an analysis of Almajiri educational expenditures made during a specified period of time. Because expenditures are so essential to the ASESA, one of the first steps in ASESA is to establish boundaries and definitions for the key technical components – the categories and classifications used for organizing the data - of the ASESA. While the four categories for organizing the data: Sources of Financing, Financing Agents, Providers of services or activities, Functions or services and activities provided, remain constant from country to country or state to state, the classifications within each category are determined by the data available within the country or state. In order to ensure comparability of data between countries/states, each country/state uses the generic classification based on the NEA classification. New subcategories are added to reflect the reality of the country/state where the NEA/SEA/SESA is being conducted, in this case ASESA Kano and Gusau. Data Boundaries and Classifications in Kano and Gusau, Nigeria

Almajiri Education

This study is focused on the education of Almajiri students in Tsangaya in Kano and Makarantar schools in Gusau. In Gusau, the term Makaratar Allo is used interchangeably with Tsangaya In both Kano and Gusau, there are three distinct forms of Qur’anic Education. The first, and predominant is the Makarantar Allo. In Kano, this is a community Qur’anic school located in almost every ward (with larger wards having more than one). The pupils are generally children from the surrounding houses, and often usually attend a form of Western schooling – attending the Makarantar Allo in the evenings (from 4.00 – 6.00 p.m.). The ASESA did not capture any data on schools organized as an after school program. The second are the Islamiyya Schools that are recognized by the Government. They are basically modernized Qur’anic schools, using Western infrastructures. They are recognized by SUBEB and receive some assistance. These schools were included with the formal schools in the State Education Accounts conducted for Kano and Zamfara. The third are the Tsangaya Schools. Mobile in nature, they revolve around the Alaramma, the Teacher, who often travels with the pupils. There are many Tsangayu where the mobile nature of the schooling system has been restricted – often an Alaramma could stay in the same place for years. This activity is focused on the last category of schools – the Tsangaya schooling system. The Tsangaya schools do not follow/operate within the national educational framework – they are not acknowledged in the National Policy on Education, and consequently receive very little government support. The Kano State Government, however, had taken a series of measures to modernize the


Figure 3.1: Flow of Funds in the Almajiri Education Sector - State of Kano and Gusau, Nigeria7

7 This is a combined list of sources of financing and financing agents for both Kano and Zamfara. Some agencies, for example the Tajweed Board are active only

in Zamfara, while others may be more active in Kano.

Federation Accounts Budget

Financing Sources

State Ministry of Finance

Financing Agents Providers (Public/Private)

Households

Households

Local NGOs, Religious and Faith Based Orgs

Private Firms, PTAs, Sch mgmt committee, Community organizations Council

Parastatals &Depts:Dir. of Islamic Orgs & Qur’anic sch dev, Agency for Qur’anic Tajweed &Memorization Board; State Scholarship Board

Local Government

Mass Education

State Ministry of Education

Office of Special Advisor to Governor Local Government Council

Donor/International Charitable organizations

Local NGOs, Religious Orgs

Private Firms, PTAs

Almajiri Schools - Tsangaya (Kano) Makarantar Allo (Gusau)

Donor/International NGOs

Uses

Maintenance

Capital expenditures

Running Costs

Transfer Expenditures

SUBEB


infrastructure of the schools, while leaving the mode of learning alone. This was achieved through the Office of the Special Advicer on Education and Information Technology, but is restricted to experimental schools rather than the generality of the Tsangayu. A similar effort has been undertaken in Zamafra state as well. Over the years there had been calls to modernize the Tsangaya schooling system and introduce more liberal arts subjects in their curriculum. This has been resisted by the Alarammomi on the basis of corrupting the purity of the religious instruction the pupils receive in the schools. Further, such moves were not immediately practical or sustainable due to the mobile nature of the pupils. Table 3.1 below presents the boundaries set as a result of discussions with the State Working Group on which expenditures are to be included for the purposes of ASESA and which data will be limited or excluded because it falls outside of those boundaries. The detailed description and definitions for these boundaries are included in Annex 3 at the end of this document. Table 3.1: Data Boundaries for ASESA

Boundaries for ASESA 1. SCHOOL YEAR -2007-2008

2. LEVEL OF ALMAJIRI EDUCATION a. Level 1 b. Level 2 c. Higher level

3. TYPE OF OWNERSHIP a. Private

4. TYPE OF INSTITUTION a. Makarantar Allo (community based and boarding; Gusau) b. Makarantar Allo (boarding only; Gusau) c. Makarantar Tsangaya (Kano)

5. LEVEL OF BREAKDOWN a. Urban and Rural b. Gender c. LGA d. State Government e. Kano and Gusau Metropolis

Categories and Classifications

A summary of the list of sources of financing, financing agents, providers of education, economic functions or the services and activities provided is indicated in Table 3.2 below. A detailed list is included in Annex 3. Table 3.2: Classifications for ASESA Kano and Gusau, Nigeria Classification Codes Category

Financing Sources

FS.1 Public Funds FS.2 Private Funds

FS.3 Rest of World

Financing Agents

FA.1 Public Sector

FA.1.1 Federal Government FA.1.2 State Government


Classification Codes Category FA.1.3 Local Government Areas (LGAs)

FA.2 Private Sector FA.3 Rest of World FA.4 Other

Providers of Education by type and Level

Type EP.2 Private Providers

Levels Level 1 Level 2 Higher

Type of Uses by each provider

EC.1. Capital Investment EC.2 Recurrent expenditures/Running Costs (includes teacher incentives) EC.3 Maintenance EC.4 Transfer expenditures EC.4 Other

3.2.4 Data collection

Members of the SWG in both states were responsible for the development of survey instruments and data collection from the Public and Private sectors. Separate survey instruments were developed for each source of data. The group developed the instruments based on their knowledge of the classification of expenditures by public and private institutions active in the field of Almajiri education in Kano and Gusau. Public sector data on Almajiri education related expenditures were collected by members of the Working group. Members of the TA team trained the SWGs in data collection methodology to ensure consistency in the collection of data and supported them throughout the process. The TA team also supervised the collection of data from the Almajiri schools. This data was collected by a local survey groups in Kano and Gusau engaged for this purpose. The Almajiri school survey was conducted on a sample in both locations, and appropriate population weights were used to estimate total spending by schools in the Kano and Gusau metropolis. The sample selection was done with the assistance of a sampling statistician who also assisted with the calculation of weights for the school survey. The SWGs decided to collect data for the school year 2007-08 as data from Almajiri schools was most likely to be available for this period. This time period spans two financial years – January to December 2007 and January to December 2008. To make all expenditure data consistent with the school year expenditure data was collected from both FY 2007 and FY 2008, and then combined together based on a proportional allocation – one third from FY 2007 and two-thirds from FY 2008. The ASESA tables, therefore, represent spending on Almajiri education in Kano and Gusau over the school year September 2007 to June 2008. Apart from the survey data, the ASESA also used information from the publicly available 2007 Budget data (audited actual expenditures) and 2008 planned Budget data obtained from Ministry of Finance (MOF) records.


3.2.5 Data Analysis

All data collected from all sources for the development of ASESA was entered into a relational database specifically developed for the ASESA. This allowed for the data to be analyzed with desired degrees of detail or aggregation. The ASESA tables have been designed to meet the requirements of most of the information needs on Almajiri educational expenditures and provide information disaggregated by the sources of financing, financing agents, providers of services, educational levels, and categories of expense. This enables the determination of:

The total level of expenditures for Almajiri education that can be compared to socio-economic aggregates (GDP, public expenditures, population, number of pupils).

Financing structure (financing of education). The effort devoted to Almajiri education by financing agents and by each source of financing

(flow of funds from source of financing to financing agents). Cost of different levels of Almajiri education by environment (level of Tsangaya schools) and

the structure of financing (flow from financing agents to educational levels). Cost of production of Almajiri education by the various education service providers (public

and private) (flow from financing agents to educational service providers). Cost of production of service providers by category of expenditure by the level of service

provider by category of expenditure (type of expenditures of service providers) The average level of financing and average expenditure by level of school.

The next sections report on the data from the ASESA matrices and provide a sectoral analysis of the data as well as an analysis from a macro-economic perspective. The data are reported separately for Kano and Gusau in Chapters 4 and 5 respectively, and then discussed together from a comparative perspective (Chapter 6).


4 Financing of Almajiri Education and Flow of Funds for

Almajiri Sub Accounts in Kano

This chapter deals with the principal results of the State Education Sub Accounts for Almajiri Education in Kano Metropolis, Kano for the school year 2007-2008 by examining the financing efforts in Almajiri education by all sources, the flow of funds between institutions, financing agents active in this sphere, the distribution of these funds between providers of education and type of expenditures. It also analyzes the average expenditures per pupil and educational level. The detailed matrices generated for the analysis of the flow of funds are included in Annex 4, relevant tables and graphs showing the flow of funds have been generated for inclusion in the body of the report.

4.1 Kano Metropolis Effort for Almajiri Education

In 2007-2008, the total expenditure on Almajiri education in Kano was 6.3 billion Naira (N=). The funds include the total public, private and external financing efforts for human, material, and equipment resources in Almajiri educational institutions in Kano metropolis. It also includes expenditures of households for school attendance and the acquisition of books and supplies The effort for Almajiri education corresponds to nearly N=4,061 per student (approximately $32.2)8. Table 4.1: Expenditure on Almajiri Education in Kano, 2007-08 School Year Education Expenditure Information Total Expenditure on Almajiri Education in Kano Metropolis N=6,338,377,250 Total Public Expenditure on Almajiri Education (by Kano State and Local) Government N=153,188,824 Number of Alamjiri Schools in Kano metropolis 3,783 Expenditure on Education per Almajiri school N=1,695,660 Population of Almajiri students in Kano metropolis 1,560,611 Expenditure on Education per Almajiri pupil N=4,061 Total expenditure by public sector on formal education (per SEA Kano 2005-06) N=23,324,806,561 Population of Kano State (2006 Census) 9,384,000 Per capita expenditure on formal education (per SEA Kano 2005-06) N=2,895 Number of students enrolled preprimary to tertiary (public and private) 2,270,004 Average expenditure per student in formal education (per SEA Kano 2005-06) N=11,970 Average expenditure per student preprimary and primary only (public and private) (per SEA Kano 2005-06) N=8,480 Source: Kano ASESA 2007-2008; SEA Kano 2005-2006; Census 2006; EMIS 2005. 8 Exchange rate in 2007: USD ($) 1 = NGN (N=) 126.


4.2 Sources of Financing for Almajiri Education

Sources of financing, as defined in the ASESA nomenclature, are those who provide funds for use by the sector. Sources of financing can be classified generically into several general categories: public, private and rest of the world. The public sector includes the more obvious sources such as the Ministry of Finance, contributions from official development assistance, and contributions from the state and local government revenues (taxes, etc.). It must be noted that while the subaccount was conducted for the Kano metropolis only, the data from the public sector is for the state as a whole. The private sector includes household out of pocket payments for tuition and fees, contributions by other private investors, and, to some extent, indigenous religious and charitable organizations. The rest of the world category includes contributions from the multilateral/bilateral development partners/donors (the two terms will be used interchangeably in this document) as well as any contribution from international NGOs, religious and charitable organizations. 4.2.1 Distribution of Source of Financing

Of the total financing on Almajiri education – N=6,338,377,250 – available to the education sector in Kano in the academic year 2007-08, public funds make up 2.4 percent, private funds make up 97.6 percent, and there was no direct financing from the rest of the world. (See Figure 4.1 and Table 4.2) Figure 4.1: Sources of Financing for Almajiri Education in Kano, 2007-08 School Year

Public2.4%

Private97.6%

Sources of Financing for Almajiri Education

Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 Table 4.2: Sources of Almajiri Education Financing in Kano, 2007-08 School Year

Source of Financing Amount in N= Percent

Public funds 153,188,824 2.4

Private funds 6,185,188,426 97.6

Total 6,338,377,250 100.00 Source: Kano ASESA 2007-2008


4.2.2 Sources of Financing by Type

The three broad groups – public sector, private sector and the rest of the world – are each comprised of several sources. The contribution of the various sources of financing within each of the three broad groups - is presented in Figure 4.2 and Table 4.3 below. Figure 4.2: Sources of Financing by Type: all sectors, 2005-06 School Year

State Govt1.1%

Local Govt1.3%

Associations0.1%

Community76.2%

Household21.3%

NGOs0.0%

Sources of Financing by type of Source

Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008

Table 4.3 Sources of Financing by Type: All sectors, 2007-08 School Year

Source of Financing Source of Financing in N= Percent Percent within

groups

Public funds State Government 69,127,644 1.1 45.1

Local Government 84,061,180 1.3 55.1

Total public funds 153,188,824 2.4 100

Private Funds Associations 9,333,935 0.1 0.2

Community 4,822,343,286 76.2 78.0

Households 1,352,104,462 21.3 21.9

NGOs 1,406,744 0.0 0.01

Total private funds 6,185,188,426 97.6 100%

Total 6,338,377,250 100.00 Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 The community was the main source of financing for Almajiri education in Kano, accounting for 76.1 percent of total expenditure on Almajiri education. The households contributed 21.3 percent, making it the second largest source of financing. The contribution of Local Governments in the Kano metropolis was 1.3 percent, while the contribution of the State was very low, representing only 1.1 percent of total expenditures for education. Internal (indigenous) NGOs funded less than 1 percent.


Within the public sector, the State government contributed over 45 percent of the total financing for Almajiri education in Kano in 2007-08 school year, while the local government contribution was55 percent. (See Figure 4.3 below). Figure 4.3: Distribution of Sources of Financing – Public Sector, 2007-08 School Year

-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

State Govt Local Govt

45.1

54.9

Perc

ent

Sources of Financing: Public Sector

Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 Among all private sources of financing in education, the community contributed 78 percent, households contributed 21.9 percent, associations contributed 0.2 percent, and indigenous non-governmental organizations contributed less than 0.1 percent. (See Figure 4.4 below). Figure 4.4: Distribution of Sources of Financing – Private Sector, 2007-08 School Year

0

20

40

60

80

Associations Community Household NGOs

0.2

78

21.9

0

Perc

ent

Sources of Financing: Private Sector

Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 The funds provided by the various sources of financing are administered by the financing agents in the public, private and the rest of the world sectors. The next section presents a description of the flow of funds from sources of financing to financing agents.


4.3 Flow of Funds from Sources of Financing to Financing Agents

Financing agents are intermediaries with programmatic responsibilities and manage or organize services. They receive funds from financing sources and use them to pay for education-related services. Like Sources of Financing, Financing Agents can also be grouped into three broad groups: (i) public sector, such as Ministry of Education; (ii) private sector, such as households, denominational or private networks, and (iii) rest of the world, such as international NGOs and donor agencies. Each of these groups is comprised of several intermediaries or financing agents. 4.3.3 Flow of Funds by Type of Financing Agents – Public, Private, Rest of

World

Overall, the public administration served as financing agent for/managed 2.4 percent of the funds made available to the Almajiri education sector in the 2007-08 academic year, while the private sector managed 97.6 percent of the funds. (See Table 4.4 and Figure 4.5). Table 4.4: Distribution of Resources Managed by Financing Agents, 2007-08 School Year:

Financing Agents Amount in N= Percent

Public funds 153,188,824 2.4

Private funds 6,185,188,426 97.6

Total 6,338,377,250 100.00 Source: Kano ASESA 2007-2008 Figure 4.5: Distribution of Funds Managed by Financing Agents, 2007-08 School Year

Flow of Funds by Financing Agents for Almajiri

Education

Private

97.6%

Public

2.4%

Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 A comparison of the distribution of funds by sources of financing and the amount managed by the financing agents reflects that the proportion of the overall funds managed by the various sectors is


almost the same as the proportion of financing for education provided by those sectors. That is, each sector manages its own funds. Table 4.5 and Figure 4.6 below show the flow of funds from the sources of financing to the financing agents. Table 4.5: Flow of Funds from Sources of Financing to Financing Agents, 2007-08 School Year

Financing Agents

Sources of Financing PUBLIC SECTOR PRIVATE SECTOR REST OF

WORLD Total Percent

( in N= )

PUBLIC SECTOR State Govt 69,127,644 - 69,127,644 1.1

Local Govt 84,061,180 - 84,061,180 1.3

PRIVATE SECTOR Associations 9,333,935 - 9,333,935 0.1

Community 532,342,144 - 532,342,144 8.4

Households 210,075,693 - 210,075,693 3.3

NGOs 1,406,744 - 1,406,744 0.0

Private Firms/Organizations

1,142,028,769 - 1,142,028,769 18.0

Community/Private organizations

4,290,001,142 - 4,290,001,142 67.7

TOTAL 153,188,824 6,185,188,426 - 6,338,377,250 100.00 Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 Figure 4.6: Flow of Funds from Sources of Financing to Financing Agents, 2007-08 School Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

PUBLIC SECTOR PRIVATE SECTOR

PUBLIC SECTOR , 100

PRIVATE SECTOR , 100

Perc

ent

Flow of funds from Sources to Financing Agents

Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 Of the total financing available to the Almajiri education sector in Kano, the community in conjunction with private organizations managed 67.7 percent. This was followed by Private Firms/organizations (owners of schools), which managed 18 percent. The community alone managed


8.4 percent, while the households managed 3.3 percent. The Local governments managed a very small proportion (1.3 percent) and the State government even managed less, at 1.1 percent. Associations and local NGOs managed less than one percent each (See Table 4.5 above and Figure 4.7 below). Figure 4.7: Distribution of Funds Managed by Financing Agents by Type, 2007-08 School Year

Flow of Funds by Financing Agents by Type

Community

8% Household

3%

Private Firms/Org

18%

Community/Private Org

69%

State Govt

1%Association

0%

Local Govt

1%

NGOs

0%

Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 4.3.4 Flow of Public Sector Funds to Public Financing Agents

Of the N=153,188,824 available to the public sector, 54.9 percent was managed directly by the local governments, while the state government managed 45.1 percent of the resources. Figure 4.8 (Table 4.6) shows the proportion of funds managed by the State and Local Governments respectively. Figure 4.8: Distribution of Funds by Financing Agents - Public Sector, 2007-08 School Year.

-

20.0

40.0

60.0


45.1 54.9

Perc

ent

Financing Agents

Distribution of funds by Financing Agents: Public



Table 4.6: Flow of Funds from Sources of Financing to Financing Agents - Public Sector, 2007-08 School Year

Financing Agents

Sources of Financing PUBLIC SECTOR Total Percent

( in N= )

PUBLIC SECTOR State Govt 69,127,644 -69,127,644 45.1

Local Govt 84,061,180 84,061,180 54.9

TOTAL 153,188,824 6,338,377,250 100.00 Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 As has been indicated above, the proportion of the overall funds managed by the various sectors is almost the same as the proportion of financing for education provided by those sectors. That is, each sector manages its own funds. This is especially the case in the public sector where not only are the public sector funds managed by the sector itself, even the distribution by level of government remains unchanged. Figure 4.9 shows that there is no difference in distribution. Figure 4.9: Comparison of Financing Sources to Financing Agents – Public Sector, 2007-08 School Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Financing Sources Financing Agents

45.1 45.1

54.9 54.9

Perc

ent

Comparison of Financing sources to Financing Agents: Public

State Govt

Local Govt

Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 An examination of the data revealed that within the state government, the financing agent for all of the State government monies was the Office of Special Advisor. The local governments’ share of the financing for Almajiri education was comprised of the contributions made by all eight local governments within the Kano Metropolis. 4.3.5 Flow of Private Sector Funds to Private Financing Agents

The private sector managed all of its own funds – N=6,185,188,426 – for providing Almajiri education-related services (Figure 4.6). Of the funds managed by the private sector, the community and private organizations together were the financing intermediaries for the expenditure of 69.4 percent, private firms/organizations managed 18.5 percent, and the community alone managed 8.6


percent, while the households managed 3.4 percent. Associations and local NGOs managed less than one percent each (Figure 4.10 and Table 4.7). Figure 4.10: Distribution of Private Sector Funds Managed by Financing Agents

Distribution of Private Sector Funds Managed by Private

Financing AgentsCommunity

8.6%

Private Firms/Org

18.5%


69.3%

Association

0.2%

Household

3.4%NGOs

0.0%

Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 Table 4.7: Flow of Funds from Sources of Financing to Financing Agents - Private Sector, 2007-08 School Year

Financing Agents

Sources of Financing PUBLIC SECTOR Total Percent

( in N= )

PRIVATE SECTOR Associations 9,333,935 9,333,935 0.2%

Community 532,342,144 532,342,144 8.6%

Households 210,075,693 210,075,693 3.4%

NGOs 1,406,744 1,406,744 0.0%

Private Firms/Organizations

1,142,028,769 1,142,028,769 18.5%

Community/Private organizations

4,290,001,142 4,290,001,142 69.4%

TOTAL 6,185,188,426 6,338,377,250 100.0% Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 However, as can be seen in Figure 4.11 below, within the sector the flow of funds from financing sources to agents changed.


Figure 4.11: Comparison of Financing Sources to Financing Agents – Private Sector, 2007-08 School Year

0

20

40

60

80

0.2

78

21.9

0 0 00.28.6 3.4 0

18.5

69.4

Perc

ent

Comparison of Financing Sources to Financing Agents: Private

Financing Sources

Financing Agents

Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 It must be mentioned here that the community as a group contributed the majority share of private investment in education (78 percent of private funds) and managed only 8.6 percent of these funds. The households came second in contribution to Almajiri education (contributing 21.9 percent) but managed only 3.4 percent of the private sector funds. A combination of the community and Private organizations, in their role as financing agents, managed most of the resources (69.4 percent), while the private firms and the organizations managed 18.5 percent.

4.3.6 Flow of Rest of World Funds to Financing Agents

During the period under review, there were no funds managed by external donors, while indigenous NGOs managed only a very small proportion (less than 1 percent).

4.4 Flow of Funds from Financing Agents to Education Providers

As explained in Chapter 2, the Traditional Qur’anic education imparted in the Tsangaya schools is non-formal education based on a continuum of learning. There are no distinct cohort levels, instead depending on their level of learning each student can be thought of as being at a particular level and students at various levels are found in all schools. As such the expenditures reported were for the school as a whole and could not be disaggregated by level of education. Providers of education for Almajiri were the Tsangaya schools. (See Table 4.8 and Figure 4.13)


Figure 4.13: Distribution of Total Resources to Education Providers, 2007-08 School Year

100%

Distribution of Total Resources to Education Providers: Almajiri/Tsangaya schools

Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 Table 4.8: Distribution of Resources from Financing Agents to Education Providers by Level of Education, 2007-08 School Year

Financing Agents

Provider Public Sector Private Sector Total Overall Percent

(in N=)

Almajiri/Tsangaya 153,188,824 6,185,188,426 6,338,377,250 100.0

Total 153,188,824 6,185,188,426 6,338,377,250 100.0 Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 As can be seen from Table 4.9 below, the Public sector spent all its resources on the Tsangaya Almajiri education. Table 4.9: Distribution of Public Sector Funds by Providers, 2007-08 School Year

Public Sector Financing Agents

Provider Level State Govt Local Govt Total Percentage

Almajiri/Tsangaya 69,127,644 84,061,180 153,188,824 100.0

Grand Total 69,127,644 84,061,180 153,188,824 100.0

Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 Of the funds administered by private sector financing agents, all were directed at the Tsangaya. (See Table 4.10). Table 4.10: Distribution of Private Sector Funds by Providers, 2007-08 School Year


Private Sector Financing Agents

Provider Level Association Community Household NGO

Private Firm/ Organization

Community/ Organization Total %

Almajiri/ Tsangaya 9,333,935 532,342,144 210,075,693 1,406,744 1,142,028,769 4,290,001,142 6,185,188,426 100

Grand Total 9,333,935 532,342,144 210,075,693 1,406,744 1,142,028,769 4,290,001,142 6,185,188,426 100


4.5 Flow of Funds from Education Providers to Uses

Overall, an examination of the structure of the expenditures incurred by all sectors in Kano shows that recurrent expenditure played a very important role representing about N=6 billion, i.e. 95.5 percent of total expenditures, in the 2007-08 school year. Expenditure on maintenance of infrastructure amounted to N=195 million, i.e. 3.1 percent, while capital projects took up about 1.4 percent. (See Table 4.110 and Figure 4.14). Table 4.11: Distribution by Category of Expenditures, 2007-08 School Year Distribution by Category of Expenditures

Expenditure Amount in Naira Percent

Capital 90,918,344 1.4

Maintenance 194,839,708 3.1

Recurrent 6,052,619,198 95.5

Grand Total 6,338,377,250 100.0 Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 Figure 4.14: Distribution of Overall Expenditures by Category of Expenditure, 2007-08 School Year

1%3%

96%

Distribution of Overall Expenditures by Category of Expenditure

Capital Maintenance Recurrent

Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 The structure of the expenditures is variable depending on the sector. In the public sector, 59.4 percent of all expenditures were allocated to capital expenditure, while 40.6 went to recurrent


expenditure. In the private sector, 3.2 percent of all expenditure was on maintenance of infrastructure, while 96.8 percent was spent on recurrent expenditure. (See Table 4.12 and Figure 4.15). Table 4.12: Distribution of Expenditures by Sector, 2007-08 School Year Providers by Sector EXPENDITURE PUBLIC SECTOR SUB % PRIVATE SECTOR SUB % Grand Total %

Capital 90,918,344 59.4 - - 90,918,344 1.4

Maintenance - - 194,839,708 3.2 194,839,708 3.1

Recurrent 62,270,480 40.6 5,990,348,718 96.8 6,052,619,198 95.5

Grand Total 153,188,824 100 6,185,188,426 100 6,338,377,250 100.00 Source: Kano ASEA, 2007-2008 Figure 4.15: Providers to Uses - Public and Private, 2007-08 School Year

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0


59.4

0

40.6

0 3.2

96.8

1.4 3.1

95.5

Perc

ent

Distribution of Expenditures by Sector

Public

Private

Total

Source: Kano ASESA, 2007-2008 Table 4.11 shows that while the public sector spent more on capital expenditure than the private sector, the private sector spent more on recurrent than the public sector. The average incentive to Almajiri teachers was N=114,141 per annum. 4.5.1 Flow of Funds from Public Sector to Uses by Education Providers

The main categories of services or uses of the public sector funds can be grouped into three broad categories: (i) capital costs, (ii) maintenance, (iii) recurrent expenditures9. Both personnel costs and running costs make up the broad category of recurrent expenditures. A breakdown is presented below.

9 Chapter 3 of this report includes a list of all the components of these expenditure categories. (See Table 3.2D -

Tables of Classifications).


Table 4.13: Public Sector Expenditures by Use Category, 2007-08 school year Expenditure Amount (N) Percentage

Capital 90,918,344 59.4

Maintenance 0- 0-

Recurrent 62,270,480 40.6

Total 153,188,824 100.00 Source: Kano ASESA 2007-2008 Figure 4.16: Public Sector Expenditures by Use Category, 2007-08 school year

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0


59.4

0

40.6

Perc

ent

Public Sector Expenditures by Use Category

Source: Kano ASESA 2007-2008 Capital expenditures, that is building new facilities and major renovations of the existing infrastructure constitute the single largest expenditure point, with almost 60 percent of the total public expenditures in that category. Recurrent expenditure was the second category of expenditures accounting for 40.6 percent of all resources. There was no expenditure on maintenance during the year under review. (See Table 4.13 and Figure 4.16) 4.5.2 Flow of Funds from Private Financing Agents to Uses

Private sector as a financing agent to expenditure categories shows that recurrent expenditure takes the majority share of the funds (96.8 percent) of the total private sector expenditure to Almajiri education in Kano. This is followed by maintenance of infrastructure (3.2 percent), while no funds were used for capital expenditure, as revealed in Table 4.14


Table 4.14: Private Financing Agents to Use, 2007-08 School Year

Source: SEA, Kano State, 2007/2008

Figure 4.16: Private Sector Expenditures by Use Category, 2007-08 school year

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

Perc

ent

AssociationsCommunity

Household NGOs

Private firm/org

Private firm/Community


Capital

Maintenance

Recurrent

Source: SEA, Kano State, 2007/2008

The recurrent costs which accounted for almost 97 percent of the private sector funds include incentives to staff, expenditure on books and school supplies, clothes, instructional materials, miscellaneous overheads, staff development, etc.

4.6 Analysis of Public and Private Sector Financing Effort for Almajiri Education in Kano

This section presents an analysis of the public and private sector financing for Almajiri education. To provide a context for this analysis, we first present a description of the Almajiri schools from a survey of a sample of schools conducted for the ASESA, followed by a discussion by sources and uses of financing.

EXPEND- ITURE


Private firm/ Org

Community/ Private

Org Total %

Capital 0 -0

Maintenance 194,839,708

194,839,708 3.2

Recurrent 9,333,935 532,342,144 210,075,69

3 1,406,744 947,189,061 4,290,001,142 5,990,348,

718 96.8

Grand Total 9,333,935 532,342,144

210,075,693 1,406,744

1,142,028,769 4,290,001,142

6,185,188,426 100


4.6.1 Almajiri Schools – Some Descriptives

Schools and Student Enrollment

As part of the Almajiri Kano State Education Sub Accounts process, a survey was conducted of Almajiri schools in Kano metropolis.10 The survey found that Kano metropolis had a total of 3,783 Almajiri schools. Table 4.15 presents the number of schools with the different levels of education in the Almajiri system in Kano metropolis. It is important to keep in mind that most schools are multilevel schools and have students at two or more levels.

Table 4.15: Distribution of Almajiri Schools by Level, 2007-08 School Year

Level of School Number

Percent of schools

(Tot. N =3783)

Level 1 3403 90%

Level 2 2471 65%

Higher Level 2433 64% Source: Computed from Almajiri school survey 2008.

Almost two-thirds of the schools (67%) were community based schools located in permanent structures with the rest being located in temporary buildings or open spaces. (Tables 4.15a; 4.15b). Table 4.15a: Distribution of Almajiri Schools by type of school, 2007-08 School Year

Type of school Percent

Makarantar Allo (community) 67

Makarantar Allo (boarding only) 17

Makarantar Tsangaya 15 Source: Computed from Almajiri school survey 2008. Table 4.15b: Distribution of Almajiri Schools by school structure, 2007-08 School Year

School structure Percent

Permanent building 54 Temporary structure 19 Open space 19 Others 8 Source: Computed from Almajiri school survey 2008. Forty four percent of these schools teach only the Qur’anic curriculum while 56% teach both the Qur’anic and Ilmi curriculum. A small percentage (5%) also offers vocational training for their students (Table 4.15c).

10 See Annex 2 for more details on the Almajiri sector survey


Table 4.15c: Distribution of Almajiri Schools by Type of Curriculum Taught, 2007-08 School Year

Type of Curriculum Percent

Quranic only 44% Quranic and Ilmi 56% Vocational 5% Source: Computed from Almajiri school survey 2008.

In the Almajiri schools, 40 percent of the students were in Level 1, 47 percent in Level 2 and 13 percent in Higher Level. (See Table 4.16)

Table 4.16: Distribution of Almajiri Students by Level, 2007-08 School Year

Distribution of students

Level of School Number Percent

Level 1 616,534 40.0

Level 2 738,179 47.0

Higher Level 205,898 13 Source: Computed from Almajiri school survey 2008. Gender Analysis

The Almajiri schools are normally for males. However, the survey of Almajiri schools in Kano revealed that some female students are allowed to obtain Qur’anic studies in some of the schools established for the Almajiri, although the females are not boarded. The survey found that out of the schools sampled, 40 percent were strictly males only, while 60 percent were coeducational. The survey found 30 percent of the students in the total sample to be females.

Almajiri Schools Teachers

Kano’s Almajiri schools have a total of 36,784 teachers. About 48 percent of the teachers were engaged in Level 1, 31.3 percent in Level 2, while 20.6 percent were engaged in the Higher level (See Table 4.17).

Table 4.17: Distribution of Almajiri School Teachers by Level, 2007-08 School Year Distribution of Teachers

Level of School Number Percent

Level 1 17,679 48.1

Level 2 11,520 31.3

Higher Level 7585 20.6 Source: Computed from Almajiri school survey 2008. In the Almajiri system of education, salaries are not paid to teachers. However, there are incentives given to teachers, even though irregularly. The total amount of incentives given to Almajiri teachers in Kano metropolis in the 2007-2008 school year was N=4,198,619,830. This comes to an average of N=114,143 per teacher per year.


School Fees

In the Almajiri system of education, school fees are not charged. However, donations are accepted from parents and community members for the upkeep of the children and the running of the schools. For instance, a total of N=92,835,580 were received by Almajiri schools for boarding facilities from the households and community members in the period under review. 4.6.2 Public Sector Sources of Financing for Education

The contribution of the public sector funds to Almajiri education is a very small proportion of the total expenditures on Almajiri schools in the Kano Metropolis. However, within that the single largest contributor of public education finance in Kano was the Local Government whose sector share constituted about 54.9 percent. The State government revenues to fund Almajiri education constituted 45.1 percent. During the period under review, no funds were available from the Federal government. Funds from the Kano State Government were mainly sourced from the Kano State Budget controlled by the Ministry of Finance, which provided all the State government contribution. The contribution of the Local government as a source of financing was larger than that of the State government and in their roles as financing agents they control all the funds the LGC allocated to Almajiri education. The main categories of services or uses of the public sector funds can be grouped into three broad categories: (i) capital costs, (ii) maintenance, (iii) recurrent expenditures11. Both personnel costs and running costs make up the broad category of recurrent expenditures. The public sector funds were expended primarily on capital costs for construction of temporary shelters and recurrent expenditures such as training programs and administrative salaries. 4.6.3 Analysis of Private Sector Financing Effort

A significant proportion of the Financing for Almajiri schools came from the private sector. The private sector contributed about N=6 billion (98 percent) of the N=6.3 billion spent on Almajiri education in Kano State. Private Sector financing sources provided funding to private financing agents only. Of the flow of private funds managed by the private sector, the community and private organizations managed 69.4 percent, private firms/organizations managed 18.5 percent, and the community alone managed 8.6 percent, while the households managed 3.4 percent. Associations and local NGOs managed less than one percent each. The recurrent costs which accounted for almost 97 percent of the private sector funds include incentives to staff, expenditure on books and school supplies, clothes, instructional materials, miscellaneous overheads, staff development, etc.

11 Chapter 3 of this report includes a list of all the components of these expenditure categories. (See Table 3. -

Tables of Classifications).


4.7 Average Expenditure per Pupil

The financing reserved for the various levels of education and category of institution (public, private) is used to pay for operating expenses (payroll, teaching materials, equipment, etc.), and capital expenditures. The various types of financing and expenditure can be put in relation to the number of pupils in school and enable calculation of the average financing or expenditure provided per pupil. This calculation makes it possible to compare the levels of cost among the different educational levels. Note that the direct out-of-pocket expenditures by households are added to the funding received to better reflect the average cost per educational level. The average expenditure per pupil for the Almajiri education in Kano was N=4,061 for the 2007-2008 school year. This was significantly lower than that for students in the formal school system. The average expenditure per pupil for all levels in 2005-06 school year for formal education by all sectors in Kano state amounted to N=11,970 while that for only pre-primary and primary education was N=8,480 (SEA Kano 2005-06). The next chapter reports on the Sub Accounts in respect of Gusau, Zamfara State.


5 Financing of Almajiri Education and Flow of Funds for

Almajiri Sub Accounts in Gusau

This chapter deals with the principal results of the State Education Sub Accounts for Almajiri Education in Gusau Metro area, Zamfara, for the school year 2007-2008 by examining the financing efforts in Almajiri education by all sources, the flow of funds between institutions, financing agents active in this sphere, the distribution of these funds between providers of education and type of expenditures. It also analyzes the average expenditures per pupil and educational level. The detailed matrices generated for the analysis of the flow of funds are included in Annex 4, relevant tables and graphs showing the flow of funds have been generated for inclusion in the body of the report.

5.1 Gusau Metropolis Effort for Almajiri Education

In 2007-2008, the total expenditure on Almajiri education in Gusau was 448million Naira (N=).The funds include the total public, private and external financing efforts for human, material, and equipment resources in Almajiri educational institutions in Gusau metropolis. The effort for Almajiri education corresponds to nearly N=8,164 per student (approximately $64.8)12. Table 5.1: Gusau Expenditure on Almajiri Education, 2007-08 School Year Education Expenditure Information Total Expenditure on Almajiri Education in Gusau Metropolis N=448,854,818 Total Public Expenditure on Almajiri Education (by Zamfara State and Local Government) N=249,757,342 Population of Almajiri Schools in Gusau Metropolis 144 Expenditure on Education per Almajiri school N=3,117,047 Population of Almajiri students in Gusau Metropolis 54,983 Expenditure on Education per Almajiri pupil N=8,164 Total expenditure by public sector on formal education (SEA Zamfara 2006-07) N=17,790,764,213 Population of Zamfara State (2006 Census) 3,259,846 Per capita expenditure on education N=6,506 Number of students enrolled preprimary to tertiary (public and private) 619,961 Average expenditure per student preprimary to tertiary (public and private) N=34,208

Average expenditure per student preprimary and primary only (public and private) N=23,751 Source: Gusau ASESA 2007-2008; SEA Zamfara 2006-07, Census 2006

12 Exchange rate in 2007: USD ($) 1 = NGN (N=) 126.


5.2 Sources of Financing for Almajiri Education

Sources of financing, as defined in the ASESA nomenclature, are those who provide funds for use by the sector. Sources of funding can be classified generically into three broad categories: public, private and rest of the world. The public sector includes the more obvious sources such as the Ministry of Finance, contributions from official development assistance, and contributions from the state and local government revenues (taxes, etc.). It must be noted that while the subaccount was conducted for the Gusau metropolis only, the data from the public sector is for the state as a whole. The private sector includes household out of pocket payments for tuition and fees, contributions by other private investors, and, to some extent, indigenous religious and charitable organizations. The rest of the world category includes contributions from the multilateral/bilateral development partners/donors (the two terms will be used interchangeably in this document) as well as any contribution from international NGOs, religious and charitable organizations. 5.2.1 Distribution of Source of Financing

Of the total financing on Almajiri education – N=448,854,818 – available to the education sector in Gusau in the academic year 2007-08, public funds make up 55.6 percent, private funds make up 44.2 percent, and 0.2 percent from the rest of the world. (See Figure 5.1 and Table 5.2) Figure 5.1: Sources of Financing for Almajiri Education in Gusau, 2007-08 School Year

Sources of Financing for Almajiri Education

Public

55.60%

Private

44.20%

Rest of the world

0.20%

Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008 Table 5.2: Sources of Almajiri Education Financing in Gusau, 2007-08 School Year

Source of Financing Amount in N= Percent

Public funds 249,757,342 55.6

Private funds 198,333,809 44.2

Rest of the world 763,667 0.2

Total 448,854,818 100.00 Source: Gusau ASESA 2007-2008


5.2.2 Sources of Financing by Type

The three broad groups – public sector, private sector and the rest of the world – are each comprised of several sources. The contribution of the various sources of financing within the three broad groups - public sector, private sector and the rest of the world – is presented in Figure 5.2 and Table 5.3 below. Figure 5.2: Sources of Financing by Type: all sectors, 2007-08 School Year

State Govt37.4%

Local Govt20.4%

Associations0.2%

Community29.9%

Household11.6%

NGOs0.4%

Rest of

world0.2%

Sources of Financing by Type

Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008

Table 5.3 Sources of Financing by Type: All sectors, 2007-08 School Year Source of Financing Source of Financing in N= Percent Percent

Public funds State Government 161,638,638 37.4 64.7

Local Government 88,118,704 20.4 35.3

Total public funds 249,757,341 55.6 100

Private Funds Associations 782,182 0.2 0.4

Community 141,043,199 29.9 71.1

Households 54,749,949 11.6 27.6

NGOs 1,758,480 0.4 0.9

Total private funds 181,805,992 44.2 100

Rest of the world International NGOs 763,667 0.2 100

Total 448,854,818 100.00 Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008 The State government was the main source of financing for Almajiri education in Gusau, accounting for 37.4 percent of total expenditure on Almajiri education. The community contributed 29.9 percent, making it the second largest source of financing. The contribution of Local Governments in the Gusau metropolis was 20.4 percent, while the contribution of the household was 11.6 percent. The


contribution of associations, local NGOs and international NGOs were very low, each contributing less than 1 percent of total expenditures for education. Within the public sector, the State government contributed 64.7 percent of the total financing for Almajiri education in Gusau in 2007-08 school year, while the local government contribution was 35.3 percent (See Figure 5.3 below). Figure 5.3: Distribution of Sources of Financing – Public Sector, 2007-08 School Year

-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


64.7

35.3

Perc

ent

Sources of Financing: Public sector

Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008 Among all private sources of financing in education, the community contributed 71.1 percent, households contributed 27.6 percent, indigenous non-governmental organizations contributed 0.9 percent and associations contributed 0.4 percent (See Figure 5.4 below). Figure 5.4: Distribution of Sources of Financing – Private Sector, 2007-08 School Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


0.4

71.1

27.6

0.9

Perc

ent

Sources of Financing: Private sector



The funds provided by the various sources of financing are administered by the financing agents in the public, private and the rest of the world sectors. The next section presents a description of the flow of funds from sources of financing to financing agents.

5.3 Flow of Funds from Sources of Financing to Financing Agents

Financing agents are intermediaries with programmatic responsibilities and manage or organize services. They receive funds from financing sources and use them to pay for education-related services. Like Sources of Financing, Financing Agents can also be grouped into three broad groups: (i) public sector, such as Ministry of Education; (ii) private sector, such as households, denominational or private networks, and (iii) rest of the world, such as international NGOs and donor agencies. Each of these groups is comprised of several intermediaries or financing agents. 5.3.1 Flow of Funds by Type of Financing Agents – Public, Private, Rest of

World

Overall, the public administration served as financing agent for/managed 55.6 percent of the funds made available to the Almajiri education sector in the 2007-08 academic year, while the private sector managed 44.2 percent of the funds and the international agencies managed 0.2 percent. (See Table 5.4 and Figure 5.5). Table 5.4: Distribution of Resources Managed by Financing Agents, 2007-08 School Year:

Financing Agents Amount in N= Percent

Public funds 249,757,341 55.6

Private funds 198,333,809 44.2

Rest of the world 763,667 0.2

Total 448,854,818 100.00 Source: Gusau ASESA 2007-2008 Figure 5.5: Distribution of Funds Managed by Financing Agents, 2007-08 School Year

Flow of funds by Financing Agents

Public

56%

Private

44%

Rest of the world

0%



A comparison of the distribution of funds by sources of financing and the amount managed by the financing agents reflects that the proportion of the overall funds managed by the various sectors is almost the same as the proportion of financing for education provided by those sectors. That is, each sector manages its own funds. Table 5.5 and Figure 5.6 below show the flow of funds from the sources of financing to the financing agents. Table 5.5: Flow of Funds from Sources of Financing to Financing Agents, 2007-08 School Year

Financing Agents

Sources of Financing PUBLIC SECTOR PRIVATE SECTOR REST OF

WORLD Total Percent

( in N= )

PUBLIC SECTOR

State Govt 161,638,638 - - 161,638,638 36.0

Local Govt 88,118,704 - - 88,118,704 19.6

PRIVATE SECTOR

Associations - 782,182 - 782,182 0.2

Community - 15,930,406 - 15,930,406 3.5

Households - 5,428,043 - 5,428,043 1.2

NGOs - 1,758,480 - 1,758,480 0.4

Private Firms/Organizations - 49,321,906 - 49,321,906 10.9

Community/Private organizations - 125,112,793 - 125,112,793 27.8

Rest of the world International NGOs - - 763,667 763,667 0.2

TOTAL 249,757,342 198,333,809 763,667 448,854,818 100.00 Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008 Figure 5.6: Flow of Funds from Sources of Financing to Financing Agents, 2007-08 School Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

PUBLIC SECTOR PRIVATE SECTOR

PUBLIC SECTOR , 100

PRIVATE SECTOR , 100

Perc

ent

Flow of funds from Sources to Financing Agents



5.3.2 Flow of Public Sector Funds to Financing Agents

Of the total financing available to the Almajiri education sector in Gusau, the Zamfara State government managed 36 percent of all available resources. The community in conjunction with private organizations managed 27.8 percent. The Local government managed 19.6, while private firms/organizations (owners of schools) managed 10.9 percent. The community alone managed 3.5 percent, while the households managed 1.2 percent. Associations, indigenous NGOs and international NGOs all managed less than one percent each (See Table 5.5 above and Figure 5.7 below). Figure 5.7: Distribution of Funds Managed by Financing Agents by Type, 2007-08 School Year

State Govt36%

Local Govt20%

Association0%

Community4%

Household1%

NGOs0%

Private Firms/Org11%

Community/Private Org28%

Rest of world

0%

Flow of Funds by Financing Agents by Type

Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008 Of the N=249,757,342 available to the public sector, 64.7 percent was managed directly by the State government, while the local governments managed 35.3 percent of the resources. Figure 5.8 shows the proportion of funds managed by the State and Local Governments respectively. Figure 5.8: Distribution of Funds by Financing Agents - Public Sector, 2007-08 School Year.

-

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0


64.7

35.3

Perc

ent

Distribution of Funds by Financing Agents: Public Sector

Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008 As has been indicated above, the proportion of the overall funds managed by the various sectors is almost the same as the proportion of financing for education provided by those sectors. That is, each


sector manages its own funds. This is especially the case in the public sector. Figure 5.9 shows that there is no difference in distribution. Figure 5.9: Comparison of Financing Sources to Financing Agents – Public Sector, 2007-08 School Year

0

20

40

60

80

Financing Sources Financing Agents

64.7 64.7

35.3 35.3

Perc

ent

Comparison of Financing Sources to Financing Agents: Public

State Govt

Local Govt

Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008 5.3.3 Flow of Private Sector Funds to Financing Agents

The private sector managed all of its own funds – N=198,333,809 – for providing Almajiri education-related services. The community and private organizations were the financing intermediaries for the expenditure of 63.1 percent. This was followed by Private Firms/organizations (owners of schools), which managed 24.9 percent. The community alone managed 8.0 percent, while the households managed 2.7 percent. Associations and local NGOs managed less than one percent each (See Table 5.6 and Fig. 5.10). Table 5.6 Distribution of Private Sector Funds Managed by Private Financing Agents, 2007-08 School Year

Financing Agent Amount in N= Percent

Associations 782,182 0.4

Community 15,930,406 8.0

Household 5,428,043 2.7

NGOs 1,406,744 0.9

Private Firms/Organizations 49,321,906 24.9

Community/Private Org 125,112,793 63.1

Total 198,333,809 100.0 Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008


Figure 5.10: Distribution of Private Sector Funds Managed by Private Financing Agents, 2007-08 School Year

Distribution of Private Sector Funds Managed by Private

Financing Agents

Private Firms/Org

25%


63%

Association

0%

Community

8% NGOs

1%

Household

3%

Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008 While the private sector managed all of its own funds, the distribution of financing sources and financing agents within the sector was different. Figure 5.11: Comparison of Financing Sources to Financing Agents – Private Sector, 2007-08 School Year

0

20

40

60

80

0.4

71.1

27.6

0.9 0 00.48 2.7 0.9

24.9

63.1

Perc

ent

Comparison of Financing Sources to Financing Agents: Private

Financing Sources

Financing Agents

Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008 It must be mentioned here that the community as a group contributed the majority share of private investment in education (71 percent of private funds) and managed only 8 percent of these funds. The households came second in contribution to Almajiri education (contributing 27.6 percent) but managed only 2.7 percent of the private sector funds. A combination of the community and Private organizations, in their role as financing agents, managed most of the resources (63.1 percent), while the private firms and the organizations managed 24.9 percent.


5.3.4 Flow of Rest of World Funds to Financing Agents During the period under review, the international NGOs contributed 0.2 percent of all funds available to Almajiri education in Gusau. This fund was managed by the international organizations.

5.4 Flow of Funds from Financing Agents to Education Providers

5.4.1 Financing Agent to Education Provider by Level of Education

In Gusau, the expenditure for Almajiri education could not be disaggregated by level of education as there are no formal levels of school. Students graduate to the next level based on their level of learning. Providers of education for Almajiri were the Makarantar Allo and all schools have students by all levels students. (See Table 5.7 and Figure 5.12). Figure 5.12: Distribution of Total Resources to Education Providers, 2007-08 School Year

100

Distribution of Total Resources to Education Providers:Almajiri/Makaranta Allo

Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008 Table 5.7: Distribution of Resources from Financing Agents to Education Providers by Level of Education, 2007-08 School Year

Financing Agents (in N=)

Provider Public Sector Private Sector Rest of the

world Total Overall Percent

Almajiri/Makarantar Allo 249,757,342 198,333,809 763,667 448,854,818 100.0

Total 249,757,342 198,333,809 763,667 448,854,818 100.0 Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008 As can be seen from Table 5.8 below, the Public sector spent all its resources on the Makarantar Allo education.


Table 5.8: Distribution of Public Sector Funds by Providers, 2007-08 School Year Public Sector Financing Agents

Provider Level State Govt Local Govt Total Percentage

Almajiri/Makarantar Allo 161,638,638 88,118,704 249,757,342 100.0

Grand Total 161,638,638 88,118,704 249,757,342 100.0 Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008 Of the funds administered by private sector financing agents, all were directed at the Makarantar Allo. (See Table 5.9). Table 5.9: Distribution of Private Sector Funds by Providers, 2007-08 School Year

Private Sector Financing Agents Provider

Level Association Community Household NGO Private Firm/ Organization

Community/ Organization Total

Percent

Almajiri/ Makaranta

r Allo 782,182 15,930,406 5,428,043 1,758,480 49,321,906 125,112,793 198,333,809 100%

Grand Total 782,182 15,930,406 5,428,043 1,758,480 49,321,906 125,112,793 198,333,809 100

Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008 The N=763,667 administered by Rest of the World was also directed at the Makarantar Allo.

5.5 Flow of Funds from Education Providers to Uses

Overall, an examination of the structure of the expenditures incurred by all sectors in Gusau shows that recurrent expenditure played a very important role representing about N=359 million, i.e. 80 percent of total expenditures, in the 2007-08 school year. Expenditure on maintenance of infrastructure amounted to about N=83 million, i.e. 18 percent, while capital projects took up about 2 percent. (See Table 5.11 and Figure 5.14). Table 5.11: Distribution by Category of Expenditures, 2007-08 School Year Distribution by Category of Expenditures Expenditure Amount in Naira Percent

Capital 7,143,886 2

Maintenance 82,932,277 18

Recurrent 358,778,655 80

Grand Total 448,854,818 100.0 Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008


Figure 5.14: Distribution of Overall Expenditures by Category of Expenditure, 2007-08 School Year

Capital2%

Maintenance18%

Recurrent80%

Distribution of Overall Expenditures by Category of Expenditure

Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008 The structure of the expenditures is variable depending on the sector. In the public sector, 67.9 of all expenditures went to recurrent expenditure, 29.2 percent to maintenance of infrastructure and 2.9 percent were allocated to capital expenditure. In the private sector, 5.0 percent of all expenditure was on maintenance of infrastructure, while 95 percent was spent on recurrent expenditure. All the funds from the rest of the world went to recurrent expenditure. (See Table 5.12 and Figure 5.15). Table 5.12: Distribution of Expenditures by Sector, 2007-08 School Year EXPENDITURE PUBLIC

SECTOR SUB %

PRIVATE SECTOR

SUB %

REST OF THE WORLD

SUB %

Grand Total Percent

Capital 7,143,886 2.9 - - - - 7,143,886 1.6

Maintenance 72,897,768 29.2 10,034,509 5.0 - - 82,932,277 18.5

Recurrent 169,715,688 67.9 188,299,300 95.0 763,667 100.0 358,778,655 79.9

Grand Total 249,757,342 100.0 198,333,809 100 763,667 100.0 448,854,818 100.00 Source: Gusau SEA, 2007-2008


Figure 5.15: Providers to Uses - Public and Private, 2007-08 School Year

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Public Private Rest of world

Total

2.9 0 0 1.6

29.2

50

18.5

67.9

95100

79.9

Perc

ent


Capital

Maintenance

Recurrent

Source: Gusau ASESA, 2007-2008 Table 5.12 shows that while the public sector spent more on capital expenditure and maintenance of infrastructure than the private sector, the private sector spent more on recurrent than the public sector. The average incentive to Almajiri/Makarantar Allo teachers was N=82,637 per annum. 5.5.1 Flow of Funds from Public Sector to Uses by Education Providers

The main categories of services or uses of the public sector funds can be grouped into three broad categories: (i) capital costs, (ii) maintenance, (iii) recurrent expenditures13. Both personnel costs and running costs make up the broad category of recurrent expenditures. A breakdown is presented below. Table 5.16: Public Sector Expenditures by Use Category, 2007-08 school year Expenditure Amount (N) Percentage

Capital 7,143,886 2.9

Maintenance 72,897,768 29.2

Recurrent 169,715,688 67.9

Total 153,188,824 100.0 Source: Gusau ASESA 2007-2008

13 Chapter 3 of this report includes a list of all the components of these expenditure categories. (See Table 3.2D

- Tables of Classifications).


Figure 5.19: Public Sector Expenditures by Use Category, 2007-08 school year

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0


2.9

29.2

67.9Pe

rcent

Public Sector Expenditures by Use Category

Source: Gusau ASESA 2007-2008 Recurrent expenditures constitute the single largest expenditure point, with 67.9 percent of the total public expenditures in that category. Maintenance of infrastructure was the second category of expenditures accounting for 29.2 percent of all resources, while capital expenditure was only 2.9 percent. (See Table 5.16 and Figure 5.19). The next section provides an analysis of the private sector and is followed by a section on the overall economic analysis. 5.5.2 Flow of Funds from Private Financing Agents to Uses

Private sector as a financing agent to expenditure categories shows that recurrent expenditure takes the majority share of the funds (95 percent) of the total private sector expenditure to Almajiri education in Gusau. This is followed by maintenance of infrastructure (5 percent), while no funds were used for capital expenditure, as revealed in Table 5.17 and Figure 5.20. The recurrent costs which accounted for 95 percent of the private sector funds include incentives to staff, expenditure on books and school supplies, clothes, instructional materials, miscellaneous overheads, staff development, etc.

Table 5.17: Private Financing Agents to Use, 2007-08 School Year

Source: SEA, Gusau, 2007/2008

EXPENDITURE

Associations Community

Household NGOs

Private firm/

Org

Community/

Private Org Total Percent

Capital - - - - - - - -

Maintenance - - - - 10,034,509 - 10,034,509 5.0

Recurrent 782,182 15,930,406 5,428,043 1,758,480 39,287,397 125,112,793 188,299,300 95.0

Grand Total 782,182 15,930,406 5,428,043 1,758,480 49,321,906 125,112,793 198,333,809 100.0


Figure 5.20: Private Sector Expenditures by Use Category, 2007-08 school year

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

Pe

rce

nt

AssociationsCommunity

Household NGOs

Private firm/org

Private firm/Community


Capital

Maintenance

Recurrent

Source: SEA, Gusau, 2007/2008

5.6 Analysis of Public and Private Sector Financing Effort for Almajiri Education in Gusau

This section is an interpretation of the public and private sector expenditures in Gusau, Zamfara State for education of Almajiri students in the School Year 2007/2008. The total effort amounted to N=249,757,342 or 55.6 percent of the total Almajiri education expenditure. To provide a context for this analysis we first present a description of the Almajiri schools from a survey of a sample of schools conducted for the ASESA, followed by a discussion by sources and uses of financing. 5.6.1 Almajiri Schools – Some Descriptives

Schools and Enrollment

As part of the Gusau ASESA process, a study was conducted of Almajiri/Makarantar Allo schools in Gusau metropolis.14 The study found that Gusau metropolis had a total of 144 Almajiri schools. Table 5.18 presents the number of schools with the different levels of education in the Almajiri system in Gusau.

Table 5.18: Distribution of Almajiri Schools by Level, 2007-08 School Year Level of School Number of schools

Level 1 127

Level 2 126

Higher Level 96 Source: Computed from Almajiri school survey 2008. Most (95%) of the schools were community based schools located in permanent structures with only 2% being located in open space (Tables 5.18a; 5.18b).

14 See Annex 2 for more details on the Almajiri sector survey


Table 5.18a: Distribution of Almajiri Schools by school structure, 2007-08 School Year

School structure Percent

Permanent building 95 Temporary structure 3 Open space 2 Others 1 Source: Computed from Almajiri school survey 2008. Table 5.18b: Distribution of Almajiri Schools by type of school, 2007-08 School Year

Type of school Percent

Makarantar Allo (community) 95

Makarantar Allo (boarding only) 3

Makarantar Tsangaya 2 Source: Computed from Almajiri school survey 2008. Almost all (88%) Almajiri schools in Gusau teach both the Qur’anic and Ilmi curriculum, 16% teach only the Qur’anic curriculum and only 1% of the schools offer vocational training for their students (Table 5.18c). Table 5.18c: Distribution of Almajiri Schools by Type of Curriculum Taught, 2007-08 School Year

Type of Curriculum Percent

Quranic only 16% Quranic and Ilmi 98% Vocational 1% Source: Computed from Almajiri school survey 2008. In the Almajiri schools, 41 percent of the students were in Level 1, 48 percent in Level 2 and 12 percent in Higher Level. (See Table 5.19)

Table 5.19: Distribution of Almajiri Students by Level, 2007-08 School Year Level of School Number of students Percent

Level 1 22,419 41.0

Level 2 26,154 48.0

Higher Level 6,410 12 Source: Computed from Almajiri school survey 2008.

Gender Analysis

The survey of Almajiri/Makarantar Allo schools in Gusau revealed that some female students are allowed to obtain Qur’anic studies in some of the schools established for the Almajiri, although the females are not boarded. The survey found that out of the schools sampled, 17 percent were strictly males only, while 83 percent were coeducational. The survey found 30 percent of the students in the total sample to be females.


Almajiri Schools Teachers

Gusau’s Almajiri schools have a total of 1,514 teachers. About 40 percent of the teachers were engaged in Level 1, 39.3 percent in Level 2, while 20.5 percent were engaged in the Higher level (See Table 5.20).

Table 5.20: Distribution of Almajiri School Teachers by Level, 2007-08 School Year Level of School Number Percent

Level 1 608 40.2

Level 2 596 39.3

Higher Level 310 20.5 Source: Computed from Almajiri school survey 2008. As in Kano salaries are not paid to Almajiri teachers in Gusau. However, there are incentives given to teachers, even though irregularly. The total amount of incentives given to Almajiri teachers in Gusau metropolis, Zamfara, in the 2007-2008 school year was N=125,112,793. This comes to an average of N=62,637 per teacher per year. School Fees

In the Almajiri system of education, school fees are not charged. However, donations are accepted from parents and community members for the upkeep of the children and the running of the schools. In Gusau, a total of N=4,656,436 were received by Almajiri schools for boarding facilities from the households and community members in the period under review. 5.6.2 Public Sector Sources of Financing for Education

In Gusau, the Public sector manages all of its own funds. The State government managed its own funds, while the Local government also managed its own funds. Public expenditures cover institutional units of the Federal, State or Local government. The single largest contributor of public education finance in Gusau was the State Government whose sector share constituted about 64.7 percent. The State government revenues to fund Almajiri education constituted 35.3 percent. During the period under review, no funds were available from the Federal government. Funds from the Zamfara State Government were mainly sourced from the Zamfara State Budget controlled by the Ministry of Finance, which provided all the State government contribution, while those from the Local government were from LGCs. While the expenditures could not be estimated by level, recurrent expenditures constitute the single largest expenditure point, with 67.9 percent of the total public expenditures in that category. Maintenance of infrastructure was the second category of expenditures accounting for 29.2 percent of all resources, while capital expenditure was only 2.9 percent.


5.6.3 Analysis of Private Sector Financing Effort

A significant proportion of the financing for the education of Almajiri students in Gusau came from the private sector. The private sector contributed about N=198 million (44.2 percent) of the N=448 million spent on Almajiri education in Gusau. The community contributed the highest portion of funding in the private sector, about 71.1 percent, households contributed 27.6 percent, Associations and NGOs contributed less than 1 percent. T Private sector as a financing agent to expenditure categories shows that recurrent expenditure takes the majority share of the funds (95 percent) of the total private sector expenditure to Almajiri education in Gusau. This is followed by maintenance of infrastructure (5 percent), while no funds were used for capital expenditure, as revealed in Table 5.21. The recurrent costs which accounted for 95 percent of the private sector funds include incentives to staff, expenditure on books and school supplies, clothes, instructional materials, miscellaneous overheads, staff development, etc.

5.7 Average Expenditure per Pupil

The financing reserved for the various levels of education and category of institution (public, private) is used to pay for operating expenses (payroll, teaching materials, equipment, etc.), and capital expenditures. The various types of financing and expenditure can be put in relation to the number of pupils in school and enable calculation of the average financing or expenditure provided per pupil. This calculation makes it possible to compare the levels of cost among the different educational levels. Note that the direct out-of-pocket expenditures by households are added to the funding received to better reflect the average cost per educational level. The average expenditure per pupil for all levels in 2006-07 school year amounted to N=34,208, while that for only the primary school students was N=23,751. However, the average expenditure per pupil for the Almajiri education in Gusau for the 2007-2008 was N=8,164, much lower than that for formal education.


6 Comparative and Macro-Economic Analysis of Expenditures for Almajiri Education in Kano and Gusau

This chapter presents a comparative and macro-economic analysis of Almajiri education expenditures in Kano Metropolis in Kano state and Gusau Metropolis in Zamfara State from a macro economic perspective. Per capita expenditures in Kano Metropolis are compared to those of Gusau Metropolis. Public and private expenditures per student are also reviewed.

6.1 Educational Expenditure from a Macroeconomic Perspective

Table 6.1 shows that the contribution of public, private and rest of the world to expenditure on Almajiri education in the Metropolis areas of Kano and Gusau is N=6.3 billion and N=449 million, respectively. This shows that Kano spent more on Almajiri education than Gusau. This, however, is to be expected since the number of Almajiri schools in Kano (3,783) is a lot more than in Gusau (144). The table also shows that the public contribution to Almajiri education is higher in Gusau (N=249,757,342) than in Kano (N=153,188,824), in spite of the higher number of Almajiri schools in Kano. Table 6.1: Kano and Gusau Expenditure on Almajiri Education, 2007-08 School Year Education Expenditure Information Kano Gusau Total Expenditure on Almajiri Education N=6,338,377,250 N=448,854,818 Total Pubic Sector Expenditure on Almajiri Education (by State and Local) Government N=153,188,824 N=249,757,342 Population of Almajiri Schools 3,783 144 Expenditure on Education per Almajiri school N=1,695,660 N=3,117,047 Population of Almajiri students 1,560,611 54,983 Expenditure on Education per Almajiri pupil N=4,061 N=8,164 Total expenditure by public sector on formal education (per SEA) N=23,324,806,561 N=17,790,764,213 Population of State (2006 Census) 9,384,000 3,259,846 Number of students enrolled preprimary to tertiary (public and private) 2,270,004 619,961 Average expenditure per student in formal education preprimary to tertiary (public and private) N=11,970 N=34,208 Number of students enrolled preprimary and primary (public and private) 1,736,243 585,643 Average expenditure per student preprimary and primary only (public and private) N=8,480 N=23,751 Number of schools preprimary and primary schools in the formal sector (public and private) 4772 1362 Average expenditure per school preprimary and primary only (public and private) 4,887,847 13,062,235 Source: Kano and Gusau ASESA 2007-2008; SEA Kano 2005-06; SEA Zamfara 2006-07


Table 6.1 also shows that in spite of the smaller number of Almajiri schools and students, Gusau’s expenditure on education per Almajiri school (N=3,117,047) was higher than that of Kano (N=1,695,660). Likewise, the expenditure on education per Almajiri pupil (N=8,164) was higher than that of Kano (N=4,061). To the extent the expenditures in the state capitals can be taken to be a representative of the trends in the rest of the state, Gusau is spending more per child and more per institution for the education of the Almajiri students than Kano state. However, in both states, the spending on pupils in the Almajiri system is lower than the expenditures on pupils in the formal school system. This is true regardless of whether the comparison is made with students in the system overall or only in the preprimary and primary levels. A comparison of the distribution of sources of financing (Figure 6.1) also shows that the public sector is spending a higher proportion of the total spending on Almajiri education in Gusau, Zamfara than in Kano. In addition, there is a small direct contribution from Rest of the World sources as well, not seen in Kano. Figure 6.1: Kano and Zamfara Expenditure on Almajiri Education, 2007-08 School Year

Source: Kano and Gusau ASESA 2007-2008; Within the public sector the local governments in Kano and in Gusau spend about the same in absolute terms. However, as a proportion of the total public sector contribution to the education of Almajiri pupils the local governments in Kano are making a larger contribution. This can be explained by the higher contribution by the Zamfara state government. Table 6.2: Kano and Gusau Expenditure on Almajiri Education, 2007-08 School Year Education Expenditure Information Kano Gusau Kano Gusau N= N= % % Total Expenditure on Almajiri Education 6,338,377,250 448,854,818 Total (Pubic Sector)Expenditure on Almajiri Education by State Government 153,188,824 249,757,342

2.4 56

Expenditure by State Govt 69,127,644 161,638,638 45.1 64.2

Expenditure by Local Govt 84,061,180 88,118,704 54.9 35.3

Source: Kano and Gusau ASESA 2007-2008;

Sources of Financing for

Almajiri Education Kano

Private

97.6%

Public

2.4%


Almajiri Education Zamfara

Rest of

the world

0%Private

44%

Public

56%


Almajiri Education

Rest of

the world

0%Private

44%

Public

56%


The rest of the financing for both Kano and Gusau comes from the private sector with the community and the households being the financing sources for about 90% of these funds. In both cities, the public and private sectors manage their own funds. However, within the private sector, the decision on how to spend the funds from all financing sources is taken by the owners of the Almajiri schools (private) schools and community organizations for the education of the Almajiri children. As has been described elsewhere in this report, the Tsangaya/Almajiri system of education for the Almajiri children is based on a continuum of learning and each school has students at both the lower and the advanced levels. Students move from one level to the next depending on their individual achievements rather than as a cohort. As such expenditures are reported for the school as a whole and estimates could not be disaggregated by level. Both in Kano and Gusau (Figure 6.2), capital expenditures were very low taking up 1-2 percent of total spending. Gusau spent about a fifth of all their expenditures on maintenance while in Kano, the effort for maintenance was also rather low. In both states the remaining went for recurrent expenditures. Figure 6.2: Distribution of Expenditures on Almajiri Education in Kano and Gusau School Year 2007-08

Source: Kano and Gusau ASESA 2007-2008; The public sector expended its funds primarily on capital expenditures, provision of temporary shades, text books, mats for sleeping etc. They also expended a small amount of funds for administrative salaries and training offered to the malams. The private sector made almost no capital expenditures, but primarily took care of the maintenance of existing structures and the recurrent expenditures including the donations to the malams or the teachers in Almajiri schools. Within the category of recurrent expenditures, the patterns for the two cities are somewhat different (see table 6.2).

Distribution of Overall

Expenditures by Category of

Expenditure - Kano

Recurrent

96%

Capital

1%

Maintena

nce

3%


Distribution of Overall

Expenditures by Category of

Expenditure - Gusau

Recurrent

79%

Capital

2%

Maintena

nce

19%



Table 6.2: Kano and Gusau Distribution of Recurrent Expenditure on Almajiri Education, 2007-08 School Year

Recurrent Expenditures Kano Gusau Kano Gusau In Naira %

Boarding Facilities 92,835,580 4,656,436 1.53% 1.30% Donations – Incentives 4,198,619,830 125,112,793 69.37% 34.87% Donations – Others 165,751,194 7,734,022 2.74% 2.16% Farming implements & products 31,452,500 0 0.52% 0.00% Instructional Materials 0 1,300,000 0.00% 0.36% Misc. Overhead Expenses 797,772,481 105,188,196 13.18% 29.32% Payment for Services provided to community 501,633,974 15,529,447 8.29% 4.33% Salaries / Personnel costs 0 47,254,452 0.00% 13.17% Training & Development 14,560,000 14,000,000 0.24% 3.90% Transport and Travelling 85,319,078 27,925,782 1.41% 7.78% Utilities (electricity, water, phone etc) 164,674,560 10,077,527 2.72% 2.81% Total 6,052,619,198 358,778,655 100.00% 100.00% Source: Kano and Gusau ASESA 2007-2008; The single largest expenditure within the recurrent expenditures is the donations/incentives paid to teachers/malams. These are in essence the salaries paid to these teachers by the school proprietors as well as the community and are meant to take care of the teachers’ board ad lodging, travel and any other incidentals. This is followed by miscellaneous overhead and includes payments for food, clothing, and any other things provided to the students by the school. Chapter 7 presents a discussion of the conclusions and significant findings as well as recommendations for future work.


7 Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter identifies some of the most significant findings of the ASESA as well as the most important recommendations for improving the process and the outcome.

7.1 Significance of Findings

On the whole, the contribution of public, private and rest of the world for expenditures on Almajiri education in Kano and Gusau is N=6.3 billion and N=449 million, respectively. On average Gusau’s expenditure on education per Almajiri school (N=3,117,047) was higher than that of Kano (N=1,695,660). Likewise, the expenditure on education per Almajiri pupil in Gusau (N=8,164) was higher than that of Kano (N=4,061). Majority of the funding for Almajiri education in Kano came from the private sector, while majority of the funding in Gusau came from the public sector. Both state governments spent less than 1 percent of state budget on Almajiri education. However, data seems to show that the proportion of Zamfara State and Local government contribution to Almajiri education was higher than that of Kano State and local government. Among all private sources of financing in Almajiri education, the community contributed over 70 percent in both states, with the household coming second. In Kano, the public sector spent most of its resources on capital projects, while the private sector spent most of its resources on recurrent expenditure. In Gusau, the public sector spent most of its resources on maintenance of infrastructure, while the private sector spent most of its resources on recurrent expenditure.

7.2 Conclusions

In both states, however, average expenditure per student for Almajiri education in Kano and Gusau (N=4,061 and N=8,164) was less than that for formal education at the pre-primary and primary levels (N=8480 in Kano and N=23,751 in Gusau), as estimated by the SEA Kano and Zamfara. The average incentives paid to teachers in Almajiri schools in Kano were N=114,143 per year and in Gusau the average was N=62,637 per year. This is very close to the mean salary for teachers in the preprimary and primary schools in Kano and Zamfara. In Kano, the mean salary for pre-primary teachers was N=151,145 and N=219,534. In Zamfara the average for pre-primary and primary school teachers was N=66,592 and N=86,625 respectively. To the extent the expenditures in the state capitals can be taken to be a representative of the trends in the rest of the state, Zamfara is spending more per child and more per institution for the education of the Almajiri students than Kano state. However, in both states, the spending on pupils in the Almajiri system is lower than the expenditures on pupils in the formal school system. This is true regardless of whether the comparison is made with students in the system overall or only in the preprimary and primary levels.


7.3 Recommendations

Surveys of Almajiri schools and a survey of relevant public offices were conducted to gather data for the ASESA. This effort included 11 data collectors in Kano and 13 in Gusau was needed to collect the data needed for the ASESA. An additional five people were used to enter the data into the database. The Working Groups in both Kano and Gusau expressed the view that the most significant contribution of the ASESA was that it allowed them to appreciate that the NEA methodology could be extended to non-formal education sector. The ASESA has also increased their understanding of the NEA methodology and has made them have a clearer picture of expenditures in Almajiri education as well as the contribution made by different sources of funding including the government (state and local), the private sector and the donors. The process of preparing the ASESA was very inclusive involving personnel not only from the relevant public sector offices but also significant stakeholders. The stakeholders included the proprietors of Almajiri schools and teachers at Almajiri schools. The involvement of all these people assured the ASESA Working Group of access to data as well as a profound understanding of that data. And, because of this involvement of stakeholders, the team was better able to collect data. Despite the inclusiveness of the process and attempts to sensitize the keepers of the data as to the need for collecting this information, the team encountered significant challenges to data collection. Some recommendations for future studies are below. The principal problems and recommendations about data are the following:

The Almajiri schools did not keep records of income and expenditure. As such, data provided were from memory. So data should be collected for the most recent time period possible.

Most of the secondary data, as well as the primary data from the schools, were not in electronic form and had to be entered manually into the data base. Electronically generated data would be easier to enter into the data base and likely result in fewer errors in transferring the data. In the absence of electronic data, it is important to build time for cleaning the data and to have the manpower to double check each and every number.

In future ASESAs it will be easier to involve a smaller group of data entry people who are better trained and more accurate.

Data was not adequately segregated in terms of levels (Levels 1 & 2 and Higher Level) or in terms of location (rural/urban) and gender.

Despite the sensitization and training, many people were not include – wider training and sensitization is necessary for school and institution-level data keepers to assure more integrity in data collection and analysis.

Recommendations for Institutionalization of ASESA: The response of the personnel working on the ASESA was very positive. We feel confident in the skills of the SWG that they could conduct the ASESA with minimal support. To repeat the ASESA we recommend:

Establishing a permanent ASESA Working Group in preparation for repeating the study when necessary.

Working with the proprietors of Almajiri schools to develop a survey instrument that could be used to collect future information on expenditures in the schools.

Providing information to the DES and NBS of household expenditure data that could be better collected from the perspective of the ASESA.

Develop a network of professionals who can be a support for others conducting ASESAs.


Annex 1: List of SWG Members and Data Collectors

Kano Government and Agencies:

1. Alhaji Rabi’u Alhaji 2. Umar Ibrahim 3. Murtala Abdul’Samad

Tsangayu and LGs

4. Idris Tanko (Tarauni LGA) 5. Fatuhu Mustapha (Kano Municipal LGA) 6. Sadiq Murtala (Fagge LGA) 7. Mohammad Shehu Hassan (Nassarawa LGA) 8. Naziru Umar (Gwale LGA) 9. Ahmad Ado (Dala LGA) 10. Mohammad Auwal Aliyu (Kumbotso LGA) 11. Lawan Uba Adamu (Ungogo LGA)

Gusau Data Collectors and SWG

Government and Agencies: 1. Muhammad Mai’inji 2. Sani Aminu 3. Yusuf Garba Joda 4. Mohammad Alkali

Makarantun Allo (Qur’anic Schools and LGs)

5. Aliyu Yusuf (Galadima B) 6. Aminu Marafa (Madawaki) 7. Ibrahim Yusuf (Galadima A) 8. Idris Abdullahi (T/ Wada A) 9. Muhammad Mai’inji (Mayana B) 10. Mukhtar Ibrahim (T/Wada B) 11. Rabi’u Maiwada (Wanke da Janyau 12. Sadisu Ibrahim (Sabon Gari ) 13. Sanusi Alaramma (Mayana A)


Annex 2: ASESA Classification and Boundaries

Table 2: Classifications for ASESA Kano and Gusau, Nigeria Table 2a. Financing Sources

Codes Category Definitions

FS.1 Public Funds This category covers all public funds and divided into further categories

FS.1.1. Federal Government Captures all funds generated as general revenue of Federal government

FS.1.1.1 Federation Accounts Allocation Committee (FAAC)

These funds are distributed to the states via the Federal Ministries of Finance and Education and the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC)

FS 1.1.2 ETF Education Trust Fund

FS.1.1.3 Other Taxes Includes VAT

FS.1.2 State Government Revenues Captures the State Government revenues, including allocation from the FAAC, revenues from state taxes and any other revenues generated by the state

FS.1.2.1 State Taxes State Taxes

FS.1.2.2. Other State Revenues Revenues Generated by the State

FS.1.3 Local Government Area (LGA) Captures the Local Government revenues, including allocation from the FAAC, revenues from local taxes and any other revenues generated by the LGA

FS.1.3.1 LG Taxes LG Taxes

FS.1.3.2.

Other LG Revenues Revenues Generated by the LGC

FS.2 Private Funds Covers all private funds generated from different sources

FS.2.1. Household Captures household payments for educational purposes. It includes spending on tuition fee, books, school clothes, transportation expenses (provided by school/university), rent/ dormitory expenses, and other related educational expenses

FS.2.2 Private Investment, Foundations, Associations,

This category covers the private capital market, which includes spending by firms, and foundations on private educational establishments.


FS.2.3 Non governmental (NGO) Kano State based NGOs

FS.2.4 Religious and Charitable Organizations

Kano State based Religious and Charitable Organizations

FS.3 Rest of World These are funds that come from outside the country as grants, or loans.

FS.3.1 International Non governmental NGO

FS.3.2 International Multilateral and Bilateral Agencies (Donors)

FS.3.3 International Religious and Charitable Organizations


Table2b: Financing Agents

Codes Categories Definitions FA.1 Public Sector Covers institutional units of federal, state or local government FA.1.1 Federal Government Covers all institutional units in the federal government,

Institutions with general, and autonomous budgets and funds under public supervision are included

FA.1.1.2 Federal Ministry of Education

Federal Ministry whose main responsibility is to provide educational services to the population

FA.1.2 State Government Covers all institutional units in the State Government; Institutions with general, and autonomous budgets and funds under public supervision are included

FA.1.2.1 Ministry of Mass Education FA.1.2.2 Ministry of Education

(MOE) State Ministry whose main responsibility is to provide educational services to the population

FA.1.2.2.1 Islamic Education Board

State Ministry whose main responsibility is to provide educational services to the population

FA.1.2.2.2 Scholarship Board Parastatal bodies under the State Ministry of Education

FA.1.2.2.3 Science Board Parastatal bodies under the State Ministry of Education

FA.1.2.2.4 Senior Sec. Mngt Board

Parastatal bodies under the State Ministry of Education

FA.1.2.4

SUBEB State Universal Basic Education Commission-a parastatal body under MOE set up to implement basic education programs that receives funds from the Federal Government and the State Government

FA.1.2.5 Other Ministries Includes formal educational programs of ministries other than MOE, e.g. Ministry of Health

FA.1.2.6 Shariah Commission FA.1.2.7 Office of Advisor (is this a

part of some Ministry) State Ministry whose main responsibility is to provide educational services to the population

FA.1.3 Local Government Areas(LGAs) Local Government Areas – there are 44 LGAs in Kano

FA.1.3.1 LGC Local Government Council whose fiscal, legislative and executive authority extend over the smallest geographic areas – there are 44 LGAs in Kano

FA.1.3.2 LGEA A local government unit whose main responsibility is to provide educational services to the population

FA.2 Private Sector Covers all institutions outside the government sector FA.2.1 Private Firms and Corporations Includes corporations, firms and foundations that are involved

in production of market goods and services including private educational services

FA.2.1.1 Private Investors FA.2.1.2 Foundations

FA.2.2 Associations Includes associations, such as the Parent Teacher Association, involved with the financing of educational and related services

FA.2.2.1 Parent Teacher Association FA.2.3 Household Out of pocket

expenditures Payments made directly by household for educational and related services.

FA.2.5 NGOs Payments made directly by NGOs for educational and related services.


FA.2.6 Religious and Charitable Organizations

Payments made directly by Religious and Charitable organizations for educational and related services.

FA.3 Rest of World These are funds that come from outside the country as grants, or loans and are controlled by the international organizations themselves.

FA.3.1 International Bilateral and Multilateral agencies (Donors)

FA.3.2 International NGOs FA.4 Other Institutions that are not classified typically under public or

private sector

Table 2c: Providers of Education by type

Codes Categories Definitions EP.1 Public Providers Schools managed by the government – MOE and SUBEB EP.1.1 Formal Schools Those that follow the 6-3-3-4 or 9-3-4 curriculum

EP.1.1.1 Pre-primary Schools EP.1.1.2 Primary Schools EP.1.1.3 Junior Secondary Schools EP.1.1.4 Senior Secondary Schools EP.1.1.5 Tertiary EP.1.1.6 Special Education

EP.2 Private Providers Includes formal and non-formal schools run by religious and charitable organizations and Foundations

EP.2.1 Formal Schools Those that follow the 6-3-3-4 or 9-3-4 curriculum EP.2.1.1 Pre-primary Schools EP.2.1.2 Primary Schools EP.2.1.3 Junior Secondary Schools EP.2.1.4 Senior Secondary Schools EP.2.1.5 Tertiary EP.2.1.6 Special Education

EP.2.2 Non Formal Schools Outside the purview of the state mandated curriculum includes religious education, adult education, etc.

EP.2.2.2 Tsangaya Schools

Boarding Qur’anic schools that follow a collegiate system where students live with and follow the teacher if he relocates

EP.2.1.2. 1 Level 1 EP.2.1.2. 2 Level 2 EP.2.1.2. 3 Higher Levels

Table 2d: Type of Expenditures by each provider (To be assigned to each provider described in Table 2c)

Codes Categories Definitions EC.1. Capital Investment

EC.1.1 Equipment Includes expenditure on computers, furniture, generator sets;

EC.1.2 Construction EC.1.2.1 Improvement and expansion of existing

facilities Includes primary, secondary school, reboarding of schools, science and technical colleges, excludes vocational colleges and training centers

EC.1.2.2 Establishment of new facilities Includes new secondary schools, and buildings for colleges and universities


Table 2d: Type of Expenditures by each provider (To be assigned to each provider described in Table 2c)

Codes Categories Definitions EC.1.2.3 Relocation of schools Refers to expenditures incurred in relocation of

schools from temporary to permanent EC.1.3 Land Acquisition EC.1.4 Purchase of Vehicles EC.1.5 Purchase of Text books A recurrent expenditure, but should be included as a

Capital expenditure per the Working group. EC.1.6 Other Capital investments

EC.2 Recurrent expenditures Includes personnel costs (EC2.1) and overhead costs (all except EC2.1)

EC.2.1 Salaries/personnel costs Includes basic salary and any allowances paid to teaching and non-teaching staff involved with the provision of education

EC.2.1.1 Basic Salary for Teaching staff For MOE this includes all staff in Grade levels 07-14 ; excludes grade levels 01-06 and 15-17

EC. 2.1.2

Basic Salary for Non-teaching staff For MOE this includes all staff in Grade levels 01-06 and 15-17 ; excludes grade levels 07-14

EC.2.1.3 Allowances for teaching staff Same as above EC. 2.1.4

Allowances for non-teaching staff Same as above

EC.2.1.5 Leave grant for teaching staff Same as above EC. 2.1.6

Leave grant for non-teaching staff Same as above

EC.2.2. Boarding Facilities EC.2.2. Donations - Incentives Donations given to Malams in lieu of salary EC.2.3 Donations - Others EC.2.4 Farming implements & products

Misc. Overhead Expenses Payment for Services provided to

community Services are provide by the schools –e.g. prayers, labor, etc.

Training & Development Transport and Travelling Utilities (electricity, water, phone etc) Boarding Facilities Donations - Incentives Donations - Others EC.3 Maintenance Maintenance of capital assets

EC.3.1 Maintenance of office furniture and equipment

Expenditure on maintenance of office equipment and furniture

EC.3.2 Maintenance of computer systems and software

EC.3.3 Maintenance of vehicles and capital assets Motor vehicle maintenance and running costs, repair of motor vehicles, fuel and lubricants

EC.3.4 Minor building maintenance and repairs EC.4 Transfer expenditures

EC.5 Other


Annex 3: Data Collection Report

The data collection for the ASESA study was preceded by two training workshops—in January and in February 2009—during which identified fieldworkers were sensitized to the nature of the data to be collected in both the site cities of Kano (Kano State) and Gusau (Zamfara State). In both the two locations the data collection training was preceded by a sensitization briefing usually comprised of a small number of strategic individuals who would form the core of the State Working Group (SWG) and who will supervise the collection, verification and validation of the data. The main objective of the exercise, as explained in both locations, was to collect expenditure patters of Almajiri schools (Tsangayu) for a specific benchmark year – and 2007/2008 was chosen as that benchmark year because it is easy for the proprietors of the schools to remember immediately what their expenditures were, especially in the absence of any formal process of keeping records. The selection of the team to be briefed included individuals who had participated in the just concluded (Kano) or recently completed (Zamfara) SEA data collection. Sensitization Workshops The first sensitization workshop which also lead to the formation of the SWG was held in Kano on 27th January 2009 where a total of 8 officers, plus TAT from AEDO participated. The Creative facilitator was in attendance. Significantly also, three Alaramma were invited to participate, and it is through their perspectives that the entire team received a clearer understanding of the Tsangaya schools and how to approach them. In Kano there was a clear understanding that Tsangaya means a residential school facility for boys only. Qur’anic schools with both boys and girls are normative community schools and not really a focus for the current study. There were a total of estimated 4,000 Tsangayu in Kano, and it was decided that 200 would be sampled, which would give at least 5%. Only the Tsangayu in the metropolitan LGs (eight of them) would be sampled. During the sensitization briefing, a participant observed that it appears that the project is only concerned with funds used and he suggested that effective utilization of funds should also be considered. The participants were made to understand that the scope of the project is limited to only the amount of money spent within a given period of time, and that no judgments are made about where the money should go. It was also pointed out that some proprietors are likely going to refuse to cooperate in any way. They always reject any form of assistance from any organized bodies. So the fear is we are certainly going to have serious problems in collecting data from their schools. This was extensively discussed and it was agreed that an introductory letter should be written seeking an authority for the survey. The main issue to be resolved is on who would write such introductory letter. The representatives of the MOE, SAEIT and AME who attended the meeting all maintained that their offices have no authority to issue the introductory letters. The only alternative agreed upon is to obtain the letter from the Emirate Council and that USAID should address its letter to the Office of SAEIT, not Hon, Commissioner MOE. This is because despite the fact of AEDO being in charge of the fieldwork, the project is still owned by USAID/Creative since they were funding it and was initiated by them, not AEDO. It was, however, agreed that all those who participated at this sensitization meeting would form the core State Working Group (SWG) for the Tsangaya study. The following were identified as likely sources of funding for Tsangayu in one form or other:

Office of the Special Adviser on Education and Information Technology (SAEIT) Local Government Councils


Private Individuals Emirate Council/Communities Foundations House hold

In Gusau a total of five local officers were briefed on 29th January 2009. We were unable to get actual Alarammomi to participate, although the Head of the Directorate of Islamic Organizations and Qur’anic schools Development doubled both as a SWG member and an Alaramma considering that he had gone through the system. The clear difference from Kano briefing was in the focus schools, where in Gusau the pupils are referred to as Almajiran Allo (slate pupils)15 rather than Tsangaya; although Tsangayu do exist, but on the outskirts of the town. Further, in Gusau, the Makarantun Allo do have a mix of boys and girls – effectively, they are community Qur’anic schools. As in Kano, only the schools within the Gusau metropolis would be sampled. The session was informed that a list of the schools is available, and that it was based on a previous census of the schools throughout the State. As in Kano, the challenge of negotiating access to the schools were discussed, and the same problem faced was the possibilities that the schools would not co-operate directly. Indeed it was revealed that in Gusau an introductory letter from any source will not assist. Further, as in Kano, the proprietors have no written records of any kind – whether of school expenditure or even the written list of the students attending their schools. So the only way to obtain the data is through personal understanding between the data collector and the proprietors. They suggested that they will explain to them that they want the information for the purpose of compiling a book. While this was not strictly true—and actually violates fieldwork ethics—it was necessary to provide some justification for the study in which field assistants would come in asking questions about school expenditure without any explanation as to who would use the data and what it would be used for. The following were identified as additional sources of funding from official agencies:

Directorate of Islamic Organizations and Qur’anic Schools Development Arabic and Islamic Education Board State Scholarship Board Qur’anic Tajweed and Memorization Board Local Government Councils

An instrument (see Appendix xxx) was developed at the end of the sensitization workshops, and it was agreed that a period would be set aside to introduce the instruments to data collectors in both Kano and Gusau. Data Collectors’ Training and Field Testing Once the SWG had been formed in both Kano and Gusau, and the instrument developed, the next stage was for data collectors’ training, and field testing of the instruments. These took two days in each location.

15 In Gusau, pupils who leave their writing slates (where the Qur’anic verses) is written, instead of taking the slates home were the ones considered Almajirai – as clearly they were out-out-towners. The data focus was on this particular category of learners. The other pupils usually take their slates home because they come from the neighborhood, and are not considered Almajirai by officials. The act of leaving their slates in the schools (the unit for counting the number of pupils in the schools)


Kano Training and Fieldwork In Kano a total of 11 data collectors were trained – eight to cover the Local Governments identified, and three to collect data from some of the identified agencies during the sensitization exercise. The training took place at the Senior Secondary Schools Management Board Conference Hall on 10th February 2009. Materials required for the data collection were issued to all the data collectors after the training with an instruction that they should commence the exercise immediately. The field testing using two schools in Dala and Tarauni LGC’s took place on 11th February 2009. No problems were faced with the actual instrument itself during the field testing. However, during the training exercise, some of the major issues raised by the data collectors included among others:

Data collectors and AEDO have no authority to collect the data. The representative of the Commissioner of Education says that the Kano State Ministry of Education does not have any jurisdiction over the schools and therefore another means must be obtained to make them co-operate.

That the schools are distributed to cover all the LGAs. This will mean extensive movement across the entire LGAs. The data collectors were made to understand that the distribution has to be in this form so that it will give a good sampling spread.

That the amount budgeted for the data collection and the number of days earmarked for the exercise is grossly inadequate. In both cases the data collectors were informed that this is the best we can do because we cannot go beyond what was budgeted.

The training was concluded with an appeal that the data collectors should do everything possible to ensure that valid and reliable data is collected. They are also informed that they will be supervised to ensure that the exercise is conducted successfully. The data collectors trained in Kano were:

Government and Agencies: 12. Alhaji Rabi’u Alhaji 13. Umar Ibrahim 14. Murtala Abdul’Samad

Tsangayu and LGs

15. Idris Tanko (Tarauni LGA) 16. Fatuhu Mustapha (Kano Municipal LGA) 17. Sadiq Murtala (Fagge LGA) 18. Mohammad Shehu Hassan (Nassarawa LGA) 19. Naziru Umar (Gwale LGA) 20. Ahmad Ado (Dala LGA) 21. Mohammad Auwal Aliyu (Kumbotso LGA) 22. Lawan Uba Adamu (Ungogo LGA)

After the training session, AEDO members paid a visit to the SAE. During the visit the SAE was given the ASESEA introductory letter sent by USAID. He was also briefed about the project and the contribution expected from his organization which is mainly on introducing our data collectors to the proprietors. The SAE indicated his pleasure with the visit and promised to do everything possible to ensure the successes of the exercise. He gave us the list of the co-coordinators in all the LGAs and promised to direct them to assist the data collectors posted to their LGAs. We were able to meet a few of them in his office that very day, and it was all agreed that without any specific written official commitment, we can go ahead and do the survey based on personal recognition and understanding.


The data collection went smoothly and for the period allocated without any need for extension. There were, however, few problems faced. These were:

Inaccurate listing of the schools: the list of the schools was provided by the Office of the SAEIT (as it was then before it was restructured to Office of the Special Adviser on Education, SAE) and based on census of the schools done in 2003/4.

Many of the schools are no longer where they should be, and the Alarammomi had also changed places. This problem was solved by the provision of additional five schools for each LGA

The Alarammomi were also often changed – a school might be there but not under the listed Alaramma; and the new one often always insist he has nothing to do with the old one.

Hostile reception: while most of the Alarammomi co-operated, there were quite a few who were hostile to the data collectors and refused to co-operate. Their reason was that such surveys had been done before and nothing came out of it, and they feel that they are just ways of using them for other purposes. On few occasions Prof. Adamu, the Director of Research, AEDO had to answer calls from agitated data collectors with an irate Alaramma in front of him to answer questions.

High expectations: worryingly many Alaramma saw the exercise as a way to improve the schools. Anticipating this (and based on previous similar experiences with Alarammomi), data collectors were trained to keep silent on any outcomes of the exercise and respond that theirs was just to collect the information.

Some of the data collectors got carried away and wrote reports that focus on improving learning conditions in the schools – clearly outside their mandate.

Gusau Training and Fieldwork The data trainers’ workshop for Gusau was conducted on 12th February, while the field testing was one on 13th February 2009 with three schools in nearby (to Zamsea Office) LGCs. Because of the high profile of the team that conducted the field testing, there were no problems in getting the three Mallams to co-operate. This is not an ideal reflection of field realities in data collection as the Mallams seemed to be clearly intimidated by the team. However, this elicited continued co-operation throughout the field work. A total of 13 data collectors were trained. Due to differences in dialect between Kano and Zamfara Hausa, minor changes were made to the wordings of the some of the items on the instrument. More significantly, however, a new term was introduced – Almajiran Allo (wooden slate pupils). This is because Zamfara does not have a large concentration of Tsangaya as in Kano; and further, they do not refer to Qur’anic schools as Tsangaya. Their Qur’anic schools are actually community Qur’anic schools, and the only way they can distinguish migrant pupils is from the number of study slates (Allo) left behind at the end of the school day. Students from neighborhoods usually take their Allo with them; whereas those from out-of-town leave them behind. There were a few Tsangayu located on the outskirts of Gusau; but the participants persistently insisted that these would not be included in the study because of their unwillingness to be part of any mainstream process. The problems concerning the data collection anticipated in Kano were also raised in Gusau and were addressed in the same manner. Additionally, the participants in Gusau wanted to know how to quantify in-kind flow of goods into the schools, rather than cash; for it is often the case that patrons give grain, not money. Participants were instructed to ―monetize‖ any in-kind contribution and write the figures in the appropriate columns. The data collectors trained in Gusau were:

Government and Agencies: 14. Muhammad Mai’inji


15. Sani Aminu 16. Yusuf Garba Joda 17. Mohammad Alkali

Makarantun Allo (Qur’anic Schools and LGs)

18. Aliyu Yusuf (Galadima B) 19. Aminu Marafa (Madawaki) 20. Ibrahim Yusuf (Galadima A) 21. Idris Abdullahi (T/ Wada A) 22. Muhammad Mai’inji (Mayana B) 23. Mukhtar Ibrahim (T/Wada B) 24. Rabi’u Maiwada (Wanke da Janyau 25. Sadisu Ibrahim (Sabon Gari ) 26. Sanusi Alaramma (Mayana A)

The problems encountered in Gusau were similar to those for Kano. Official agencies initially were reluctant to co-operate since there was no specific letter of authority from either the Ministry of Education or any other recognized civil service agency. This letter could not be obtained simply because no one has the authority to write it – precisely because the Qur’anic schools in both Kano and Gusau are not under any specific centralized authority, and therefore do not have to co-operate with any agency. In both Kano and Gusau data collection was done within the period of three weeks allocated. Sampling Sampling Plan Sampling Size

A project sampling frame is 5% for Kano. Kano submitted a total of slightly less than 4000 schools (2005), while Gusau had 204 (in 2008). These figures are from official sources. In Kano, they were obtained from the Office of the Special Adviser on Education and Information Technology. In Gusau the figures were provided by Zamfara State Arabic and Islamic Education Board. Stratification Criteria Sampling was determined by the school size, measured in terms of the number of pupils in the school. The schools were randomly selected from the available printed list for each LGA using stratified random sampling method. Since the master list was accurate only up to a particular year, any school not currently present will be substituted by the nearest random number. Kano

Kano has a total of eight local governments in the metropolis. These schools had a total of a little less than 4,000 schools. A project working sample size of 5% for work the eight LGAs worked at 195 target schools per LGA. Kano has a total of 11 data collectors, out of which eight were posted to the eight LGAs which cover 200 schools among them. This means that each data collection had 25 schools to cover; an additional five schools were included in the list which act as a back up – which proved useful because many of the schools on the original list could either not be located, or the Alaramma refused to co-operate. The rest of the three data collectors were sent to Agencies of the government to obtain data on funding of the Tsangaya schools. Gusau


In Gusau, the entire township is considered a Local Government. Since the number of the schools was not as much as in Kano, it was decided to take 140 schools, rather than the 5% which will give only about 10 schools. The larger number of 140 will bring the study on almost sampling equivalency to Kano. The sampling criteria is stratified at the ward level.


Sensitization and Training Workshop for Almajiri SEA Sub-Account (ASSEA)

Tuesday 27th (Kano) and Thursday 29th (Gusau) January 2009

Monday 12th January 9.00 a.m.– 9.30 a.m Prayer and Introductions Abba/Kunle 9.45 a.m. – 10.30 a.m. Introduction to ASESA Abdalla 10.30 a.m. – 10.30 p.m. Coffee break Group 10.40 a.m. – 12.00 p.m. Data Structure for ASSEA Abdalla/Kunle/Deepika 12.00 p.m. – 1.00 p.m. Challenges, Reactions, Feedback Abba 1.00 a.m – 2.00 p.m. Lunch Prayer Group 2.00 p.m – 3.00 p.m. Re-presenting the Data Kunle/Deepika/Abdalla 3.00 p.m – 4.00 p.m. Cleaning the instrument Group, Abba facilitates 4.00 p.m. – 4.15 p.m. Next steps Group


Monday and Tuesday 9th and 10th February 2009

Thursday 12th and Friday 13th Feburary 2009, Gusau

Data Collector’s Workshop Kano: SSSMB Conference Hall Monday 9th Feb 2009 – Presentation of the Instrument 9.00 a.m.– 9.30 am Prayer and Introductions Abba 9.45 a.m. – 10.30 a.m. Reintroduction ASSEA Abdalla 10.30 a.m. – 10.40 p.m. Coffee break Group 10.40 a.m. – 2.00 p.m. The Questionnaire Abdalla/Kunle/Abba 2.00 p.m. – 4.00 p.m. Challenges, Reactions, Feedback Abba Tuesday 10th Feb 2009 – Trial Testing and Questionnaire Cleaning 10.00 am – 1.00 p.m. Trial Testing Participants AEDO 1.00 pm – 2.00pm Lunch break Group 3.00 am – 4.00 p.m. Cleaning the instrument Group, Abba facilitates 4.00 p.m. – 4.15 p.m. Next steps: Distribution of Instrument and

collectors Group

Gusau: ZAMSEA Office Thursday 12th Feb 2009 Event Responsible 9.00 a.m.– 9.30 am Prayer and Introductions Abba 9.45 a.m. – 10.30 a.m. Reintroduction ASSEA Abdalla 10.30 a.m. – 10.40 p.m. Coffee break Group 10.40 a.m. – 2.00 p.m. The Questionnaire Abdalla/Kunle/Abba 2.00 p.m. – 4.00 p.m. Challenges, Reactions, Feedback Abba Friday 13th Feb 2009 – Trial Testing and Questionnaire Cleaning 10.00 am – 1.00 p.m. Trial Testing Participants AEDO 1.00 pm – 2.00pm Lunch break Group 3.00 am – 4.00 p.m. Cleaning the instrument Group, Abba facilitates 4.00 p.m. – 4.15 p.m. Next steps: Distribution of Instrument and

collectors Group


Annex 4: Data Matrices

Matrix 1: Sources of Education

Financing

Financing Sources Total

PUBLIC FUNDS

153,188,824

PRIVATE FUNDS

6,185,188,426

Grand Total

6,338,377,250

Matrix 1.1: Sources of Education Financing (Detailed)

Financing Sources Financing Sources Total

PUBLIC FUNDS State Govt 69,127,644 Local Govt 84,061,180 PUBLIC FUNDS Total 153,188,824 PRIVATE FUNDS Associations 9,333,935 Community 4,822,343,286 Household 1,352,104,462 NGO 1,406,744 PRIVATE FUNDS Total 6,185,188,426 Grand Total 6,338,377,250

Matrix 1.1.1 Sources of Education Financing (Detailed)


PUBLIC FUNDS State Govt SMOF 69,127,644 Local Govt LGC 84,061,180 PUBLIC FUNDS Total 153,188,824 PRIVATE FUNDS Associations Associations 9,333,935 Community Community 4,822,343,286 Household Household 1,352,104,462 NGO NGO 1,406,744 PRIVATE FUNDS Total 6,185,188,426 Grand Total 6,338,377,250

Matrix 1a: Sources of Education

Financing

Financing Sources Total PUBLIC FUNDS 2.4% PRIVATE FUNDS 97.6% Grand Total 100.0%



PUBLIC FUNDS State Govt 45.1% Local Govt 54.9% PUBLIC FUNDS Total 100.0% PRIVATE FUNDS Associations 0.2% Community 78.0% Household 21.9% NGO 0.0% PRIVATE FUNDS Total 100.0% Grand Total



PUBLIC FUNDS State Govt SMOF 45.1% Local Govt LGC 54.9% PUBLIC FUNDS Total 100.0% PRIVATE FUNDS Associations Associations 0.2% Community Community 78.0% Household Household 21.9% NGO NGO 0.0% PRIVATE FUNDS Total 100.0% Grand Total

Financing Sources Financing Agents PUBLIC FUNDS PRIVATE FUNDS Grand Total

PUBLIC SECTOR 153,188,824 153,188,824

PRIVATE SECTOR 6,185,188,426 6,185,188,426

Grand Total 153,188,824 6,185,188,426 6,338,377,250

Matrix 2: Financing Sources to Financing Agents

Matrix 2.1: Financing sources (detailed) to Financing Agents

Financing Sources

PUBLIC FUNDS

PUBLIC FUNDS Total

PRIVATE FUNDS

PRIVATE FUNDS Total Grand Total

Financing Agents State Govt Local Govt Community Household NGO Associations

PUBLIC SECTOR

69,127,644

84,061,180

153,188,824

153,188,824

PRIVATE SECTOR

4,822,343,286

1,352,104,462

1,406,744

9,333,935

6,185,188,426

6,185,188,426

Grand Total

69,127,644

84,061,180

153,188,824

4,822,343,286

1,352,104,462

1,406,744

9,333,935

6,185,188,426

6,338,377,250

Matrix 2.1a: Financing sources (detailed) to Financing Agents

Financing Sources

PUBLIC FUNDS

PUBLIC FUNDS Total

PRIVATE FUNDS



PUBLIC SECTOR 100% 100% 100% 2.4% PRIVATE SECTOR 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97.6%

Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100.0%

Matrix 2a: Financing Sources to Financing Agents

Financing Sources Financing Agents PUBLIC FUNDS PRIVATE FUNDS Grand Total

PUBLIC SECTOR 100% 2.4% PRIVATE SECTOR 100% 97.6% Grand Total 100% 100% 100.0%

Matrix 2.2 Financing Sources to Financing Agents Financing Sources

Financing Agents

PUBLIC FUNDS PRIVATE FUNDS Grand Total

PUBLIC SECTOR State Govt

69,127,644 69,127,644

Local Govt

84,061,180 84,061,180

PUBLIC SECTOR Total

153,188,824 153,188,824 PRIVATE SECTOR Associations

9,333,935 9,333,935

Community

532,342,144 532,342,144

Household

210,075,693 210,075,693

NGO

1,406,744 1,406,744

Private Firms/ Organisations

1,142,028,769 1,142,028,769

community/private organization

4,290,001,142 4,290,001,142

PRIVATE SECTOR Total

6,185,188,426 6,185,188,426

Grand Total

153,188,824

6,185,188,426 6,338,377,250 Matrix 2.2 a: Financing Sources to Financing Agents Financing Sources

Financing Agents

PUBLIC FUNDS

PRIVATE FUNDS Grand Total

PUBLIC SECTOR State Govt 45.1% 45.1% Local Govt 54.9% 54.9% PUBLIC SECTOR Total 100.0% 100.0% PRIVATE SECTOR Associations 0.2% 0.2% Community 8.6% 8.6% Household 3.4% 3.4% NGO 0.0% 0.0% Private Firms/ Organisations 18.5% 18.5% community/private organization 69.4% 69.4% PRIVATE SECTOR Total 100.0% 100.0% Grand Total

Matrix 2.3: Financing Sources (Detailed) to Financing Agents (Detailed)

Financing Sources

PUBLIC FUNDS

PUBLIC FUNDS Total PRIVATE FUNDS




69,127,644

69,127,644

69,127,644

Local Govt

84,061,180

84,061,180

84,061,180 PUBLIC SECTOR Total

69,127,644

84,061,180

153,188,824

153,188,824

PRIVATE SECTOR Associations

9,333,935

9,333,935

9,333,935

Community

532,342,144

532,342,144

532,342,144

Household

210,075,693

210,075,693

210,075,693

NGO

1,406,744

1,406,744

1,406,744


1,142,028,769

1,142,028,769

1,142,028,769

community/private organization

4,290,001,142

4,290,001,142

4,290,001,142


4,822,343,286

1,352,104,462

1,406,744

9,333,935

6,185,188,426

6,185,188,426

Grand Total

69,127,644

84,061,180

153,188,824

4,822,343,286

1,352,104,462

1,406,744

9,333,935

6,185,188,426

6,338,377,250

Matrix 2.3a: Financing Sources (Detailed) to Financing Agents (Detailed)

Financing Sources

PUBLIC FUNDS

PUBLIC FUNDS Total PRIVATE FUNDS



PUBLIC SECTOR

State Govt 100.0% 45.1% 45.1% Local Govt 100.0% 54.9% 54.9%

PUBLIC SECTOR Total

69,127,644 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

PRIVATE SECTOR Associations 100.0% 0.2% 0.2%

Community 11.0% 8.6% 8.6%

Household 0.0% 15.5% 3.4% 3.4%

NGO 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Private Firms/ Organisations 0.0% 84.5% 18.5% 18.5% community/private organization 89.0% 0.0% 69.4% 69.4%

PRIVATE SECTOR Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Grand Total

Matrix 3.1 Financing Agents to Providers by Levels

Financing Agents

EP_id PUBLIC SECTOR PRIVATE SECTOR Grand Total Almajari / Tsangaya 153188824 6185188426 6338377250 Grand Total 153188824 6185188426 6338377250

Matrix 3.2 Financing Agents to Providers by Location

Financing Agents

PUBLIC SECTOR

PUBLIC SECTOR Total

PRIVATE SECTOR

PRIVATE SECTOR Total Grand Total

Sc_ID State Govt Local Govt

Associations Community Household NGO


Community /private organization

Urban 69,127,644

84,061,180

153,188,824

9,333,935

532,342,144

210,075,693

1,406,744

1,142,028,769

4,290,001,142

6,185,188,426

6,338,377,250

Grand Total

69,127,644

84,061,180

153,188,824

9,333,935

532,342,144

210,075,693

1,406,744

1,142,028,769

4,290,001,142

6,185,188,426

6,338,377,250

Matrix 3.1a Financing Agents to Providers by Levels

Financing Agents

EP_id PUBLIC SECTOR PRIVATE SECTOR Grand Total Almajari / Tsangaya 100% 100% 100% Grand Total 100% 100% 100%

Matrix 3.2a: Financing Agents to Providers by Location

Financing Agents

PUBLIC SECTOR

PUBLIC SECTOR Total

PRIVATE SECTOR


Sc_ID State Govt Local Govt




Urban 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Matrix 3.3 Financing Agents to Providers by Ownership

Financing Agents

PUBLIC SECTOR

PUBLIC SECTOR Total

PRIVATE SECTOR


Ownership State Govt Local Govt




Pvt. Voluntary

69,127,644

84,061,180

153,188,824

9,333,935

532,342,144

210,075,693

1,406,744

1,142,028,769

4,290,001,142

6,185,188,426

6,338,377,250

Grand Total

69,127,644

84,061,180

153,188,824

9,333,935

532,342,144

210,075,693

1,406,744

1,142,028,769

4,290,001,142

6,185,188,426

6,338,377,250

Matrix 3.3a Financing Agents to Providers by Ownership

Financing Agents

PUBLIC SECTOR

PUBLIC SECTOR Total

PRIVATE SECTOR


Ownership State Govt Local Govt




Pvt. Voluntary 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Matrix 3.4 Financing Agents to Providers by Type

Financing Agents INS_id PUBLIC SECTOR PRIVATE SECTOR Grand Total Islamic 153188824 6185188426 6338377250 Grand Total 153188824 6185188426 6338377250

Matrix 3.4a Financing Agents to Providers by Type

Financing Agents INS_id PUBLIC SECTOR PRIVATE SECTOR Grand Total Islamic 100% 100% 100% Grand Total 100% 100% 100%

Matrix 4.1: Providers by Levels to expenditure categories

Provider Level EXPENDITURE Tsangaya Grand Total CAPITAL 90,918,344 90,918,344 MAINTENANCE 194,839,708 194,839,708 RECURRENT 6,052,619,198 6,052,619,198 Grand Total 6,338,377,250 6,338,377,250

Matrix 4.1a: Providers by Levels to expenditure categories

Provider Level EXPENDITURE Tsangaya Grand Total CAPITAL 1.4% 1.4% MAINTENANCE 3.1% 3.1% RECURRENT 95.5% 95.5% Grand Total 100.0% 100.0%

Matrix 4.1.1: Providers by Levels to expenditure categories (details)

Provider Level

EXPENDITURE Almajari / Tsangaya Grand Total

CAPITAL Construction 85,952,144 85,952,144

Equipment 2,508,200 2,508,200

Textbook Purchase 2,458,000 2,458,000

CAPITAL Total 90,918,344 90,918,344

MAINTENANCE Minor Building Repairs 194,839,708 194,839,708

MAINTENANCE Total 194,839,708 194,839,708

RECURRENT Boarding Facilities 92,835,580 92,835,580

Donations - Incentives 4,198,619,830 4,198,619,830

Donations - Others 165,751,194 165,751,194

Farming implements & products 31,452,500 31,452,500

Misc. Overhead Expenses 797,772,481 797,772,481

Payment for Services provided to community 501,633,974 501,633,974

Training & Development 14,560,000 14,560,000

Transport and Travelling 85,319,078 85,319,078

Utilities (electricity, water, phone etc) 164,674,560 164,674,560

RECURRENT Total 6,052,619,198 6,052,619,198

Grand Total 6,338,377,250 6,338,377,250

Matrix 4.1.1a: Providers by Levels to expenditure categories (details)

Provider Level


CAPITAL Construction 94.5% 1.4%

Equipment 2.8% 0.0%

Textbook Purchase 2.7% 0.0%

CAPITAL Total 100.0% 1.4%

MAINTENANCE Minor Building Repairs 100.0% 3.1%

MAINTENANCE Total 3.1%

RECURRENT Boarding Facilities 1.5% 1.5%

Donations - Inventives 69.4% 66.2%

Donations - Others 2.7% 2.6%

Farming implements & products 0.5% 0.5%

Misc. Overhead Expenses 13.2% 12.6%

Payment for Services provided to community 8.3% 7.9%

Training & Development 0.2% 0.2%

Transport and Travelling 1.4% 1.3%

Utilities (electricity, water, phone etc) 2.7% 2.6%

RECURRENT Total 100.0%

95.5%

Grand Total 100%

Matrix 4.2: Providers by Location to expenditure categories

SECTOR EXPENDITURE Urban Grand Total CAPITAL 90,918,344 90,918,344 MAINTENANCE 194,839,708 194,839,708 RECURRENT 6,052,619,198 6,052,619,198 Grand Total 6,338,377,250 6,338,377,250

Matrix 4.2a: Providers by Location to expenditure categories

SECTOR EXPENDITURE Urban Grand Total CAPITAL 1.4% 1.4% MAINTENANCE 3.1% 3.1% RECURRENT 95.5% 95.5% Grand Total 100.0% 100.0%

Matrix 4.3: Providers by Ownership to expenditure categories

Ownership_ID EXPENDITURE Pvt. Voluntary Grand Total CAPITAL 90,918,344 90,918,344 MAINTENANCE 194,839,708 194,839,708 RECURRENT 6,052,619,198 6,052,619,198 Grand Total 6,338,377,250 6,338,377,250

Matrix 4.3a: Providers by Ownership to expenditure categories

Ownership_ID EXPENDITURE Pvt. Voluntary Grand Total CAPITAL 1.4% 1.4% MAINTENANCE 3.1% 3.1% RECURRENT 95.5% 95.5% Grand Total 100.0% 100.0%

Matrix 4.4: Providers by Type to expenditure categories

INS_id EXPENDITURE Islamic Grand Total CAPITAL 90,918,344 90,918,344 MAINTENANCE 194,839,708 194,839,708 RECURRENT 6,052,619,198 6,052,619,198 Grand Total 6,338,377,250 6,338,377,250

Matrix 4.4a: Providers by Type to expenditure categories

INS_id EXPENDITURE Islamic Grand Total CAPITAL 1.4% 1.4% MAINTENANCE 3.1% 3.1% RECURRENT 95.5% 95.5% Grand Total 100.0% 100.0%

Matrix 6.: Financing Agents to Expenditures EXPENDITURE

PUBLIC SECTOR

PRIVATE SECTOR Grand Total

CAPITAL

90,918,344

90,918,344 MAINTENANCE

194,839,708

194,839,708

RECURRENT

62,270,480

5,990,348,718

6,052,619,198

Grand Total

153,188,824

6,185,188,426

6,338,377,250

Matrix 6a.: Financing Agents to Expenditures EXPENDITURE

PUBLIC SECTOR


CAPITAL 59.4% 0.0% 1.4% MAINTENANCE 0.0% 3.2% 3.1%

RECURRENT 40.6% 96.8% 95.5%

Grand Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Matrix 6.1: Financing Agents (detail) to Expenditures (detailed)

Financing Agents

EXPENDITURE PUBLIC SECTOR


CAPITAL Construction 85,952,144

85,952,144

Equipment 2,508,200

2,508,200

Textbook Purchase 2,458,000

2,458,000

CAPITAL Total 90,918,344

90,918,344

MAINTENANCE Minor Building Repairs

194,839,708

194,839,708

MAINTENANCE Total 194,839,708

194,839,708

RECURRENT Boarding Facilities 92,835,580

92,835,580

Donations - Inventives 4,198,619,830

4,198,619,830

Donations - Others 165,751,194

165,751,194

Farming implements & products 31,452,500

31,452,500

Misc. Overhead Expenses 15,257,980

782,514,501

797,772,481

Payment for Services provided to community 501,633,974

501,633,974

Training & Development 14,560,000

14,560,000

Transport and Travelling 1,000,000

84,319,078

85,319,078

Utilities (electricity, water, phone etc) 164,674,560

164,674,560

RECURRENT Total 62,270,480

5,990,348,718

6,052,619,198

Grand Total 153,188,824

6,185,188,426

6,338,377,250

Matrix 6.1a: Financing Agents (detail) to Expenditures (detailed)

Financing Agents

EXPENDITURE PUBLIC SECTOR


CAPITAL Construction 94.5% 1.4% Equipment 2.8% 0.0% Textbook Purchase 2.7% 0.0% CAPITAL Total 100.0% 1.4% MAINTENANCE

Minor Building Repairs 100.0% 3.1%

MAINTENANCE Total 100% RECURRENT Boarding Facilities 1.5% 1.5% Donations - Inventives 70.1% 66.2% Donations - Others 2.8% 2.6% Farming implements & products 50.5% 0.0% 0.5% Misc. Overhead Expenses 24.5% 13.1% 12.6% Payment for Services provided to community 0.0% 8.4% 7.9% Training & Development 23.4% 0.0% 0.2% Transport and Travelling 1.6% 1.4% 1.3% Utilities (electricity, water, phone etc) 0.0% 2.7% 2.6% RECURRENT Total 100.0% 100.0%

Grand Total 100%

Matrix 6.1.1: Financing Agents (Detailed) to Expenditures (Detailed)

EXPENDITURE

Financing Agents

PUBLIC SECTOR

PUBLIC SECTOR Total

PRIVATE SECTOR


State Govt Local Govt Associations Community Household NGO



CAPITAL

Construction 50,653,144

35,299,000

85,952,144

85,952,144

Equipment 2,508,200

2,508,200

2,508,200

Textbook Purchase

2,458,000

2,458,000

2,458,000

CAPITAL Total

50,653,144

40,265,200

90,918,344

90,918,344

MAINTENANCE

Minor Building Repairs

194,839,708

194,839,708

194,839,708

MAINTENANCE Total

194,839,708

194,839,708

194,839,708

RECURRENT Boarding Facilities

1,454,269

91,381,312

92,835,580

92,835,580

Donations - Inventives

4,198,619,830

4,198,619,830

4,198,619,830

Donations - Others

9,333,935

155,010,516

1,406,744

165,751,194

165,751,194

Farming implements & products

9,877,500

21,575,000

31,452,500

31,452,500

Misc. Overhead Expenses

15,257,980

15,257,980

782,514,501

782,514,501

797,772,481

Payment for Services provided to community

377,331,628

124,302,346

501,633,974

501,633,974

Training & Development

8,597,000

5,963,000

14,560,000

14,560,000

Transport and Travelling

1,000,000

1,000,000

84,319,078

84,319,078

85,319,078

Utilities (electricity, water, phone etc)

164,674,560

164,674,560

164,674,560

RECURRENT Total

18,474,500

43,795,980

62,270,480

9,333,935

532,342,144

210,075,693

1,406,744

947,189,061

4,290,001,142

5,990,348,718

6,052,619,198

Grand Total

69,127,644

84,061,180

153,188,824

9,333,935

532,342,144

210,075,693

1,406,744

1,142,028,769

4,290,001,142

6,185,188,426

6,338,377,250

Matrix 6.1.1: Financing Agents (Detailed) to Expenditures (Detailed)

EXPENDITURE

Financing Agents

PUBLIC SECTOR

PUBLIC SECTOR Total

PRIVATE SECTOR





CAPITAL

Construction 100.0% 87.7% 94.5% 1.4% Equipment 0.0% 6.2% 2.8% 0.0% Textbook Purchase 0.0% 6.1% 2.7% 0.0%

CAPITAL Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

MAINTENANCE

Minor Building Repairs 100% 100% 3.1%

MAINTENANCE Total 100% 100%

RECURRENT Boarding Facilities 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 2.1% 1.5% 1.5%

Donations - Inventives 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 97.9% 70.1% 66.2%

Donations - Others 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 29.1% 100.0% 2.8% 2.6%

Farming implements & products 53.5% 49.3% 50.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

Misc. Overhead Expenses 0.0% 34.8% 24.5% 0.0% 0.0% 82.6% 13.1% 12.6%

Payment for Services provided to community 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 70.9% 59.2% 8.4% 7.9%

Training & Development 46.5% 13.6% 23.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Transport and Travelling 0.0% 2.3% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 40.1% 1.4% 1.3%

Utilities (electricity, water, phone etc) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17.4% 2.7% 2.6%

RECURRENT Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.5% Grand Total 100.0%

ZAMFARA Matrix 1: Sources of Education Financing

Financing Sources Total PUBLIC FUNDS 249,757,342 PRIVATE FUNDS 198,333,809 REST OF THE WORLD 763,667 Grand Total 448,854,818



PUBLIC FUNDS State Govt 161,638,638 Local Govt 88,118,704 PUBLIC FUNDS Total 249,757,341 PRIVATE FUNDS Associations 782,182 Community 141,043,199 Household 54,749,949 NGOs 1,758,480 PRIVATE FUNDS Total 181,805,992

REST OF THE WORLD International NGOs 763,667

REST OF THE WORLD Total 763,667 Grand Total 448,854,818



PUBLIC FUNDS State Govt SMOF 69,127,644 Local Govt LGC 84,061,180 PUBLIC FUNDS Total 153,188,824 PRIVATE FUNDS Associations Associations 9,333,935 Community Community 4,822,343,286 Household Household 1,352,104,462 NGO NGO 1,406,744 PRIVATE FUNDS Total 6,185,188,426 Grand Total 6,338,377,250

Matrix 1a: Sources of Education Financing

Financing Sources Total PUBLIC FUNDS 55.6% PRIVATE FUNDS 44.2% REST OF THE WORLD 0.2% Grand Total 100.0%

Matrix 1.1.1: Sources of Education Financing detailed by Source and Sub Source

FS_id1 Financing Sources FS_id3 Total PUBLIC FUNDS State Govt SMOF 64.7% Local Govt LGC 35.3% PUBLIC FUNDS Total 100.0% PRIVATE FUNDS Associations Trade Organization 0.4% Community Community 71.1% Household Household 27.6% NGOs NGOs 0.9% PRIVATE FUNDS Total 100.0% REST OF THE WORLD International NGOs International NGOs 100.0% REST OF THE WORLD Total Grand Total

Matrix 1.1a: Sources of Education Financing (Detailed)


PUBLIC FUNDS State Govt 64.7% Local Govt 35.3% PUBLIC FUNDS Total 100.0% PRIVATE FUNDS Associations 0.4% Community 71.1% Household 27.6% NGOs 0.9% PRIVATE FUNDS Total 100.0%

REST OF THE WORLD International NGOs 100.0%

REST OF THE WORLD Total Grand Total

Financing Sources

Financing Agents PUBLIC FUNDS PRIVATE FUNDS

REST OF THE WORLD Grand Total

PUBLIC SECTOR

249,757,341.7

249,757,341.7

PRIVATE SECTOR

198,333,809.3

198,333,809.3 REST OF THE WORLD

763,666.9 763,666.9

Grand Total

249,757,341.7

198,333,809.3

763,666.9

448,854,817.9

Matrix 2.1: Financing sources (detailed) to Financing Agents …….part 2

Matrix 2: Financing Sources to Financing Agents

Matrix 2.1: Financing sources (detailed) to Financing Agents …….part 1 Financing Sources

PUBLIC FUNDS

PUBLIC FUNDS Total

PRIVATE FUNDS

PRIVATE FUNDS Total

Financing Agents State Govt Local Govt Associations Community Household NGOs

PUBLIC SECTOR 161,638,638.0

88,118,703.7

249,757,341.7

PRIVATE SECTOR 782,181.8

141,043,198.8

54,749,948.7

1,758,480.0

198,333,809.3

REST OF THE WORLD

Grand Total

161,638,638

88,118,704

249,757,342

782,182

141,043,199

54,749,949

1,758,480

198,333,809

Financing Sources REST OF THE WORLD

Financing Agents International NGOs REST OF THE WORLD Total Grand Total

PUBLIC SECTOR 249,757,341.7 PRIVATE SECTOR 198,333,809.3 REST OF THE WORLD 763,666.9 763,666.9 763,666.9 Grand Total 763,666.9 763,666.9 448,854,817.9

Financing Sources

Financing Agents PUBLIC FUNDS PRIVATE FUNDS


PUBLIC SECTOR 100% 55.6% PRIVATE SECTOR 100% 44.2% REST OF THE WORLD 100% 0.2% Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100.0%

Matrix 2.1a: Financing sources (detailed) to Financing Agents …….part 2

Matrix 2a: Financing Sources to Financing Agents

Matrix 2.1a: Financing sources (detailed) to Financing Agents …….part 1 FS_id1

PUBLIC FUNDS

PUBLIC FUNDS Total

PRIVATE FUNDS

PRIVATE FUNDS Total

Financing Agents State Govt Local Govt Associations Community Household NGOs PUBLIC SECTOR 100% 100% 100% PRIVATE SECTOR 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% REST OF THE WORLD Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Financing Sources REST OF THE WORLD

Financing Agents International NGOs REST OF THE WORLD Total Grand Total

PUBLIC SECTOR 55.6% PRIVATE SECTOR 44.2% REST OF THE WORLD

100% 100% 0.2%

Grand Total 100% 100%

100.0%

Matrix 2.2 Financing sources (detailed) to Financing Agents…….part1 Financing Sources

PUBLIC FUNDS PUBLIC FUNDS Total

State Govt State Govt Total Local Govt Local Govt Total

Financing Agents FA_id2 SMOF LGC


161,638,638

161,638,638

161,638,638

Local Govt

88,118,704

88,118,704


161,638,638

161,638,638

88,118,704

88,118,704

249,757,342

PRIVATE SECTOR Associations Community

Community/ Private Organisations

Household NGOs

Private Firms / Organisations

PRIVATE SECTOR Total REST OF THE WORLD International NGOs REST OF THE WORLD Total

Grand Total

161,638,638

161,638,638

88,118,704

88,118,704

249,757,342

Matrix 2.2 Financing sources (detailed) to Financing Agents ……..part2 Financing Sources

PRIVATE FUNDS

PRIVATE FUNDS Total

Associations

Associations Total Community

Community Total

Household

Household Total NGOs

NGOs Total

Financing Agents Trade Organization Community

Household NGOs

PUBLIC SECTOR State Govt Local Govt PUBLIC SECTOR Total PRIVATE SECTOR Associations

782,182

782,182

782,182

Community 15,930,406

15,930,406

15,930,406


125,112,793

125,112,793

125,112,793

Household 5,428,043

5,428,043

5,428,043

NGOs 1,758,480

1,758,480

1,758,480


49,321,906

49,321,906

49,321,906

PRIVATE SECTOR Total 782,182

782,182

141,043,199

141,043,199

54,749,949

54,749,949

1,758,480

1,758,480

198,333,809

REST OF THE WORLD

International NGOs


782,182

782,182

141,043,199

141,043,199

54,749,949

54,749,949

1,758,480

1,758,480

198,333,809

Matrix 2.2 Financing sources (detailed) to Financing Agents ……..part3 FS_id3

REST OF THE WORLD


International NGOs International NGOs

Total

FA_id1 FA_id2 International NGOs


161,638,638

Local Govt


249,757,342

PRIVATE SECTOR Associations

782,182

Community

15,930,406


125,112,793

Household

5,428,043

NGOs

1,758,480


49,321,906


198,333,809 REST OF THE WORLD International NGOs 763,667 763,667 763,667

763,667

REST OF THE WORLD Total 763,667 763,667 763,667

763,667

Grand Total 763,667 763,667 763,667

448,854,818

Matrix 3.1 Financing Agents to Providers by Levels

Financing Agents

PUBLIC SECTOR

PUBLIC SECTOR Total PRIVATE SECTOR


REST OF THE WORLD


EP_id State Govt Local Govt



Household NGOs


International NGOs

Almajari / Makaranta Allo

161,638,638

88,118,704

249,757,342

782,182

15,930,406

125,112,793

5,428,043

1,758,480

49,321,906

198,333,809

763,667

763,667

448,854,818

Grand Total

161,638,638

88,118,704

249,757,342

782,182

15,930,406

125,112,793

5,428,043

1,758,480

49,321,906

198,333,809

763,667

763,667

448,854,818

Matrix 3.2 Financing Agents to Providers by Location

Financing Agents

PUBLIC SECTOR



REST OF THE WORLD


Sc_ID State Govt

Local Govt



Household NGOs


International NGOs

Urban

161,638,638

88,118,704

249,757,342

782,182

15,930,406

125,112,793

5,428,043

1,758,480

49,321,906

198,333,809

763,667

763,667

448,854,818

Grand Total

161,638,638

88,118,704

249,757,342

782,182

15,930,406

125,112,793

5,428,043

1,758,480

49,321,906

198,333,809

763,667

763,667

448,854,818

Matrix 3.1a Financing Agents to Providers by Levels

Financing Agents

EP_id PUBLIC SECTOR

PRIVATE SECTOR


Almajari / Makaranta Allo 100% 100% 100% 100% Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Matrix 3.2a Financing Agents to Providers by Location

Financing Agents

PUBLIC SECTOR



REST OF THE WORLD


Sc_ID State Govt

Local Govt



Household NGOs


International NGOs

Urban

100% 100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Grand Total

100% 100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Matrix 3.3: Financing agents to Providers by Ownership

Matrix 3.4: Financing agents to Providers by Type (Islamic/Secular)

Matrix 3.3a: Financing agents to Providers by Ownership

Matrix 3.4a: Financing agents to Providers by Type (Islamic/Secular)

Financing Agents

EP_id PUBLIC SECTOR

PRIVATE SECTOR


Pvt. Voluntary

249,757,342 198,333,809

763,667

448,854,818

Grand Total

249,757,342 198,333,809

763,667

448,854,818

Financing Agents

INS_id PUBLIC SECTOR

PRIVATE SECTOR


Islamic 249,757,342 198,333,809

763,667

448,854,818

Grand Total 249,757,342 198,333,809

763,667

448,854,818

Financing Agents

EP_id PUBLIC SECTOR

PRIVATE SECTOR


Pvt. Voluntary 100% 100% 100% 100% Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Financing Agents

INS_id PUBLIC SECTOR

PRIVATE SECTOR


Islamic 100% 100% 100% 100% Grand Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Matrix 4.1: Providers by Levels to expenditure categories

Provider Level

EXPENDITURE Almajari / Makaranta Allo Grand Total

CAPITAL 7,143,886 7,143,886 MAINTENANCE 82,932,277 82,932,277 RECURRENT 358,778,655 358,778,655 Grand Total 448,854,818 448,854,818

Matrix 4.1a: Providers by Levels to expenditure categories

Provider Level EXPENDITURE Tsangaya Grand Total CAPITAL 1.4% 1.4% MAINTENANCE 3.1% 3.1% RECURRENT 95.5% 95.5% Grand Total 100.0% 100.0%

Matrix 4.1.1: Providers by Levels to expenditure categories (details)

Provider Level

EXPENDITURE Almajari / Makaranta Allo Grand Total

CAPITAL Construction 3,518,720 3,518,720

Equipment 3,525,166 3,525,166

Textbook Purchase 100,000 100,000

CAPITAL Total 7,143,886 7,143,886

MAINTENANCE Minor Building Repairs 82,932,277 82,932,277

MAINTENANCE Total 82,932,277 82,932,277

RECURRENT Boarding Facilities 4,656,436 4,656,436

Donations - Incentives 125,112,793 125,112,793

Donations - Others 7,734,022 7,734,022

Instructional Materials 1,300,000 1,300,000

Misc. Overhead Expenses 105,188,196 105,188,196

Payment for Services provided to community 15,529,447 15,529,447

Salaries / Personnel costs 47,254,452 47,254,452

Training & Staff development 14,000,000 14,000,000

Transport and Travelling 27,925,782 27,925,782

Utilities (electricity, water, phone etc) 10,077,527 10,077,527

RECURRENT Total 358,778,655 358,778,655

Grand Total 448,854,818 448,854,818

Matrix 4.1.1a: Providers by Levels to expenditure categories (details)

Provider Level


CAPITAL Construction 49.3% 0.8%

Equipment 49.3% 0.8%

Textbook Purchase 1.4% 0.0%

CAPITAL Total 100.0% 1.6%

MAINTENANCE Minor Building Repairs 100.0% 18.5%

MAINTENANCE Total

RECURRENT Boarding Facilities 1.3% 1.0%

Donations - Incentives 34.9% 27.9%

Donations - Others 2.2% 1.7%

Instructional Materials 0.4% 0.3%

Misc. Overhead Expenses 29.3% 23.4%

Payment for Services provided to community 4.3% 3.5%

Salaries / Personnel costs 13.2% 10.5%

Training & Staff development 3.9% 3.1%

Transport and Travelling 7.8% 6.2%

Utilities (electricity, water, phone etc) 2.8% 2.2%

RECURRENT Total 100.0% 79.9%

Grand Total 100.0%

Matrix 4.2: Providers by Location to expenditure categories

SECTOR EXPENDITURE Urban Grand Total CAPITAL 7,143,886 7,143,886 MAINTENANCE 82,932,277 82,932,277 RECURRENT 358,778,655 358,778,655 Grand Total 448,854,818 448,854,818

Matrix 4.2a: Providers by Location to expenditure categories

SECTOR EXPENDITURE Urban Grand Total CAPITAL 1.6% 1.6% MAINTENANCE 18.5% 18.5% RECURRENT 79.9% 79.9% Grand Total 100.0% 100.0%

Matrix 4.3: Providers by Ownership to expenditure categories

Ownership_ID EXPENDITURE Pvt. Voluntary Grand Total CAPITAL 7,143,886 7,143,886 MAINTENANCE 82,932,277 82,932,277 RECURRENT 358,778,655 358,778,655 Grand Total 448,854,818 448,854,818

Matrix 4.3a: Providers by Ownership to expenditure categories

Ownership_ID EXPENDITURE Pvt. Voluntary Grand Total CAPITAL 1.6% 1.6% MAINTENANCE 18.5% 18.5% RECURRENT 79.9% 79.9% Grand Total 100.0% 100.0%

Matrix 4.4: Providers by Type to expenditure categories

INS_id EXPENDITURE Islamic Grand Total CAPITAL 7,143,886 7,143,886 MAINTENANCE 82,932,277 82,932,277 RECURRENT 358,778,655 358,778,655 Grand Total 448,854,818 448,854,818

Matrix 4.4a: Providers by Type to expenditure categories

INS_id EXPENDITURE Islamic Grand Total CAPITAL 1.6% 1.6% MAINTENANCE 18.5% 18.5% RECURRENT 79.9% 79.9% Grand Total 100.0% 100.0%

Matrix 6.: Financing Agents to Expenditures EXPENDITURE

PUBLIC SECTOR

PRIVATE SECTOR


CAPITAL

7,143,886 7,143,886

MAINTENANCE

72,897,768

10,034,509 82,932,277

RECURRENT

169,715,688

188,299,300

763,667 358,778,655

Grand Total

249,757,342

198,333,809

763,667 448,854,818

Matrix 6a.: Financing Agents to Expenditures EXPENDITURE

PUBLIC SECTOR


CAPITAL 59.4% 0.0% 1.4% MAINTENANCE 0.0% 3.2% 3.1%

RECURRENT 40.6% 96.8% 95.5%

Grand Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Matrix 6.1a: Financing Agents (detail) to Expenditures (detailed)

FA_id1

EC_id1 EC_id2 PUBLIC SECTOR

PRIVATE SECTOR


CAPITAL Construction

3,518,720

3,518,720

Equipment

3,525,166

3,525,166

Textbook Purchase

100,000

100,000

CAPITAL Total

7,143,886

7,143,886

MAINTENANCE Minor Building Repairs

72,897,768

10,034,509

82,932,277

MAINTENANCE Total

72,897,768

10,034,509

82,932,277

RECURRENT Boarding Facilities

4,656,436

4,656,436

Donations - Incentives

125,112,793

125,112,793

Donations - Others

6,970,355

763,667

7,734,022

Instructional Materials

1,300,000

1,300,000

Misc. Overhead Expenses

86,661,236

18,526,960

105,188,196

Payment for Services provided to community

15,529,447

15,529,447

Salaries / Personnel costs

47,254,452

47,254,452

Training & Staff development

14,000,000

14,000,000

Transport and Travelling

20,000,000

7,925,782

27,925,782

Utilities (electricity, water, phone etc)

500,000

9,577,527

10,077,527

RECURRENT Total

169,715,688

188,299,300

763,667

358,778,655

Grand Total

249,757,342

198,333,809

763,667

448,854,818

Matrix 6.1.1a Financing Agents (Detailed) to Expenditures (Detailed)

EXPENDITURE

Financing Agents

PUBLIC SECTOR

PUBLIC SECTOR Total

PRIVATE SECTOR





CAPITAL

Construction 100.0% 87.7% 94.5% 1.4% Equipment 0.0% 6.2% 2.8% 0.0% Textbook Purchase 0.0% 6.1% 2.7% 0.0%

CAPITAL Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

MAINTENANCE

Minor Building Repairs 100% 100% 3.1%

MAINTENANCE Total 100% 100%

RECURRENT Boarding Facilities 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 2.1% 1.5% 1.5%

Donations - Inventives 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 97.9% 70.1% 66.2%

Donations - Others 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 29.1% 100.0% 2.8% 2.6%

Farming implements & products 53.5% 49.3% 50.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

Misc. Overhead Expenses 0.0% 34.8% 24.5% 0.0% 0.0% 82.6% 13.1% 12.6%

Payment for Services provided to community 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 70.9% 59.2% 8.4% 7.9%

Training & Development 46.5% 13.6% 23.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Transport and Travelling 0.0% 2.3% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 40.1% 1.4% 1.3%

Utilities (electricity, water, phone etc) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17.4% 2.7% 2.6%

RECURRENT Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.5% Grand Total 100.0%

Matrix 6.1.1.1a Financing Agents (Detailed) to Expenditures (further Detailed) Financing Agents EXPENDITURE EC_id2 EC_id3

PUBLIC SECTOR

PRIVATE SECTOR


CAPITAL Construction Temporary Shades 3,518,720 3,518,720

Equipment (blank) 3,525,166 3,525,166

Textbook Purchase Textbook Purchase 100,000 100,000

CAPITAL Total 7,143,886 7,143,886

MAINTENANCE Minor Building Repairs (blank)

72,897,768

10,034,509 82,932,277

MAINTENANCE Total 72,897,768

10,034,509 82,932,277

RECURRENT Boarding Facilities Others 3,257,127 3,257,127

Voluntary Contributions for Boarding_Higher Level

510,545 510,545

Voluntary Contributions for Boarding_Level 1

456,982 456,982

Voluntary Contributions for Boarding_Level 2

431,782 431,782

Donations - Incentives Incentives to Teachers 125,112,793 125,112,793

Donations - Others Alms 2,220,165 2,220,165

Asst From Int. Donors 763,667 763,667

Asst From NGO/ CBO 1,758,480 1,758,480

Asst From Trade Grp 782,182 782,182

Cash Tithe 954,545 954,545

Farm Tithe 919,310 919,310

Thanksgiving 335,673 335,673

Instructional Materials Exercise Books 500,000 500,000

stationary 800,000 800,000

Misc. Overhead Expenses Clothing / uniforms 3,128,400

3,128,400

Food supply 8,998,505 8,998,505

Medical Expenses 1,502,236

6,285,509 7,787,745

Others 85,159,000

114,545 85,273,545

Payment for Services provided to community Amulets

368,183 368,183

Animal Rearing 3,697,659 3,697,659

Caligraphic Fees 27,551 27,551

Farm Labor 226,365 226,365

Farming 2,456,679 2,456,679

Graduation Ceremony 330,873 330,873

Others 109,418 109,418

Prayer Sessions 2,546,880 2,546,880

Shop Renting 79,637 79,637

Vacation Fees 3,598,473 3,598,473

Vocational Fees - -

Washed Quranic Verses 616,582 616,582

Wed. Sch. Fees 1,471,147 1,471,147

Salaries / Personnel costs Basic salary for Staff 26,902,878 26,902,878

Entertainment Allowance 100,000 100,000

Leave grant for Staff 1,574 1,574

Transport Alowance 20,000,000 20,000,000

Utilities allowance 250,000 250,000

Training & Staff development (blank)

14,000,000 14,000,000

Transport and Travelling (blank) 27,925,782

20,000,000 7,925,782

Utilities (electricity, water, phone etc) Telephone Services

150,000 150,000

(blank) 350,000

9,577,527 9,927,527

RECURRENT Total 169,715,688

188,299,300

763,667 358,778,655

Grand Total 249,757,342

198,333,809

763,667 448,854,818

almajiri state education - … nigeria . united ... 4.6.1 almajiri schools ... 5.1 gusau metropolis...

Documents