90 likes | 240 Views
Improving Students Performance in External Examination (WAEC-SSCE). Cross River State Presentation. Profile : State Capital: Calabar Population: 2.8 Million (1991 Population Census) No. of Schools: Primary: 1,280 (Private & Public) Secondary: 502 (Private & Public) Tertiary: 2
E N D
Improving Students Performance in External Examination (WAEC-SSCE) Cross River State Presentation Profile: State Capital: Calabar Population: 2.8 Million (1991 Population Census) No. of Schools: Primary: 1,280 (Private & Public) Secondary: 502 (Private & Public) Tertiary: 2 Enrolment: Primary: 523,956 Secondary: 166,416
Problem: Students Poor Performance in WAEC - SSCE • Why is Students Performance in External Examination Poor? • Because they are poorly taught. • In 2006/2007 & 2007/2008, only 23.6% and 27.0% respectively had 5 Credits and above. • Why are Students poorly taught? • Teachers are ill equipped. • Inspection Reports/Screening of Teachers.
Problem: Students Poor Performance in WAEC – SSCE (2) • Why are teachers ill equipped? • Because they lack teaching skills. . • More than 50% of the teachers do not have teaching qualification. • Why do they lack teaching skills? • They are not trained teachers. • Performance in State and National conducted examinations show that students perform in subjects taught by professional teachers.
Problem: Students Poor Performance in WAEC - SSCE (3) • Why are they not trained teachers? • Because very few qualified candidates choose teaching as a profession. • Many who enter the teaching profession do so as a last resort
Planned Impact and Possible Risks • Provide textbooks at subsidised rates and other instructional materials; • Retrain teachers in pedagogy and in subject areas; • Introduce compulsory 1hr preparatory period for students after school; • Sensitize parents on the need to take interest in their children/wards studies/homework; • Introduce all embracing report card for students; • Comprehensive and regular inspection and supervision of schools and teaching/learning process; • Public announcement (at school assembly hall) of termly results of students; and • Principals/teachers authorized to enforce discipline. • Possible Risks: • Funding; • Compliance with rules and regulations; • Possible Withdrawals of Students/Increased Attrition; • Community Interference; and • Lack of Cooperation from Parents.
Implementation: Stakeholder Analysis and Analysis of Capacity Needs Capacity Training Needs: Total No. of Teachers: 6,008 Total No. of Principals: 249 Total 6,257 • Stakeholder Analysis: • The Students; • The Head Teacher; • Teacher; • The Parents; • The Community; • The Private Sector (Employer); • The Universities/Colleges of Education; and • The Local Government/State/ Federal Government/International Organizations • Institutions Responsible for Capacity Building: • The College of Education, Akamkpa; and • Institute/Faculty of Education, University of Calabar
Cross River State Reform Costing (2008) • S/N Policy Option Investment Funding Source • Cost (N) • A. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE • Improving Facilities/Infrastructure 3.80b CRSG/ETF • Financing SS 2 Mock Examination 0.40b CRSG • Capacity Building for Teachers 0.20b ETF/CRSG/FMOE • Printing of Minimum Standard Guides, etc 0.112b CRSG • New Instructional Materials 1.00b CRSG • Scholarship/Bursary 0.20b CRSG/PTDF/C Wealth • Development of Curriculum 0.20b CRSG/NERDC • Total Capital Cost 5.912b • RECURRENT EXPENDITURE • 7. Inspectorate/PRS Logistics 1.00b CRSG • PTA/Community Based Mgt Meetings 0.10b CRSG • Workshop/Seminars 0.366b CRSG/ETF • Incentives/CCTs 0.400b CRSG • Personnel Cost 5.00b CRSG • Total Recurrent Cost 6.866b • Grant Total 12.778b