By Aare Afe Babalola

A GOVERNMENT driven curriculum cannot be effective in a market driven society, especially at the tertiary education level. The role of government in poor curriculum development and implementation in educational institutions is twofold. The first is in the form of government policies on education, and the second is in the form of regulations. 

Section 1 of the Education (National Minimum Standards) and Establishment of Institutions Act of 1985 provides that the responsibility for the establishment and maintenance of minimum standards in pre-primary and primary schools and similar institutions in the federation is vested in the minister.

By the provision of Section 4 of the same act, the responsibility for the establishment and maintenance of minimum standards in secondary schools and higher institutions in the federation shall be vested in the minister. 

By Section 10 of the same act, the power to lay down minimum standards for all universities and other institutions of higher learning in the federation and the accreditation of their degrees and other academic awards is vested in the National Universities Commission, the former in consultation with the university for that purpose after obtaining prior approval through the minister from the President.

The foregoing are the minimum standards that the institutions must teach their students. There is no review period in the law, nor are there provisions for considerations for review. So, what we have in this country is a government-driven curriculum, and this has been so for decades.

A government-driven curriculum cannot be effective in a market-driven society, especially at the tertiary education level. Professions that want to remain competitive and efficient in the market must be allowed to figure out how to develop a curriculum that will enable them to remain relevant in the marketthe market must be allowed to figure out how to develop a curriculum that will enable them to remain relevant in the market.

 These professions form associations that meet periodically to deliberate on the best ways to move their professions forward. They also will have to determine the core competencies and soft skills, based on market realities, that their members must have, to remain competitive. For example, marketing and management skills may be important to a lawyer, while fine arts skills may be relevant to a medical doctor. 

Otherwise, how would he draw or effectively interpret computer drawings of those complex organs usually contained in foreign textbooks? In countries where things are working, no profession stands alone. Individuals in the industries are encouraged to develop competencies and specialisations in affiliate programmes after completing their basic education while remaining members of that industry.

This will enable a holistic approach to the education and practice of the profession. In addition, each individual institution must determine its areas of comparative advantage and develop curriculum that will promote them. 

For example, it would ordinarily be expected that with the large scale farming in Northern Nigeria today, many universities of agriculture would have sprung up in the region with specially developed and highly commercialised curricula leading to degrees and vocational certificates, particularly in the areas of mechanised farming, the development of improved species, and an effective system for storing products that are market proven and driven.

Private and public universities: Perhaps the worst area in which government policies have negatively impacted curriculum development is the segregation between private and public institutions in the area of funding. Government policies favor public-sector research funding over private-sector research funding. 

The usual reason given for this segregation is a lack of adequate funding from government. This has also featured prominently in the ongoing trade dispute between the Academic Staff Union of Universities, ASUU, and the Federal Government. While ASUU claims that government has failed to honour its agreement with it by not releasing money it ought to release for funding research in the universities, the Federal Government is claiming that it does not have such funds to pay ASUU; otherwise, government will not have money to run.

In my mind, both arguments are quite misplaced. This is because investments in research and, by extension, in the development of new curriculum that will teach and implement the outcomes of the new research should be looked at as economic investments. When a person, through proper feasibility studies, determines that a particular research outcome is profitable, he usually does all within his power, including borrowing, to fund the initiative. 

What government should demand from ASUU is proof that the research funds they are claiming will result in a measurable and calculable profit in terms of national development, self-reliance, and the country’s economic sustainability.

When looked at from this perspective, it will reveal that research funding cannot be given to a university or an academic staff merely because it exists or that the staff is employed. It will be allocated based on the critical areas of need of society in accordance with government’s development agenda, and only to institutions and individuals who have demonstrated credible research initiatives for meeting those needs.

As a result, it makes no difference whether an institution is private or public, or whether the researcher works in a private or public institution. On the one hand, government cannot afford to blindly throw funds at educational institutions for research, but on the other hand, it cannot be encouraged to throw a blanket of “no” over demands for effective funding of research in these institutions.

*Please send your comments and suggestions to my email: president@abuad.edu.ng.