Project Abstract

<p> Two decades of research into educational production functions have produced startlingly consistent results Variations in school expenditures are not systematically related to variations in student performance. Enormous differences in teacher quality exist, but differences in teacher skill are not strongly related to educational backgrounds, amount of teaching experience, or teaching in small classes. Further, more skilled teachers simply are not regularly paid more than less skilled teachers. These findings suggest that school decision making must move away from traditional “input directed” policies to ones providing performance incentives. The concentration on expenditure differences in, for example, school finance court cases or legislative deliberations, appears misguided given the evidence. <br></p>

Project Overview

<p> </p><div><p><strong>INTRODUCTION</strong></p><p>Until recently, education spending has enjoyed healthy year-on-year increases, but that is set to change. Along with most areas of government spending, education spending is set to shrink over the current Spending Review period. What will be the size of the total cuts and how will they be shared across different areas of education spending? Somewhat surprisingly, the answers to these questions cannot be easily found in current data published by the government.</p><p>In this Briefing Note, we produce new estimates of the likely cuts to overall Student spending on education in the Nigeria up to 2014-15. We have also pieced together various published plans for grants and specific components of education spending. This provides the most comprehensive analysis of the pattern of cuts across different areas of education spending published to date. We also analyse which types of schools are likely to see the largest increases in funding and which are likely to see real-terms cuts.</p><p>Throughout this Briefing Note, we focus on changes to the financial inputs into the education system rather than the outputs from it, such as young people’s exam results or earnings potential. We are concerned about the level of these inputs, of course, to the extent that they translate into the desired outputs. One would generally expect lower levels of financial inputs to make it tougher to deliver improvements in such outputs. Furthermore, even if there are offsetting improvements in the productivity of the inputs into education, such improvements could well have taken place in the absence of cuts to those financial inputs.</p><p><strong>1.3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES</strong></p><p>The following are what the researcher work intends to achieve.</p><ol><li>To determine the statistical analysis of students expenditure in Imo State Polytechnic Umuagwo.</li><li>To determine the reason why student spend much in Imo State Polytechnic.</li><li>To estimate students average weekly expenditure on drinking and Smoking.</li><li>To determine whether the rate on expenditure in Imo State Polytechnic is too high.</li></ol><p><strong>1.4 &nbsp; SCOPE OF THE STUDY</strong></p><p>This study covers all the 2007/2008 regular students of the Imo State Polytechnic Umuagwo. Hence the target population consists of all the students of various departments excluding all the preliminary students and evening students.</p><p>Secondly, due to some resources, time and financial constraints, and for the reason that it will be laborious to carry out the survey on the entire population of all the students in a sample of the population will be considered.</p><p><strong>1.5 &nbsp; PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING DATA COLLECTION</strong></p><p>It will be helpful to enumerate some of the problems the researcher encountered during the survey.</p><p>There was a problem of refusal and loss of questionnaires. Some students refused to fill the questionnaires claiming that they do not have time. Some respondents decided to go home with ones allocated to them and refused to bring them back.</p><p>The researcher finds it difficult to distribute, the questionnaires to the particular level of student he is researching for.</p><p>Some respondent completed the questionnaires wrongly. Some ticked more than one option where only one option was required. While some filled in unrelated replies to the spaces provided, thereby making the questionnaire invalid. Some respondents returned the questionnaires very late.</p><p><strong>REFERENCES</strong></p><p>Academic Planning Division, NUC: Twenty Years (1962-1982) of Academic Development in the Nigerian Federal, University System in: 20 Years of University Education in Nigeria, pp. 84-90.</p><p>Adamu, Mahdi (ed.) (1989); University Education: Its Standard and Relevance to the Nigerian Community (Being Proceedings of a Joint Seminar Organised by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors of Nigerian Universities and the Nigerian Universities Commission, Held at the Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto, from 17th to 19th March, 1986).</p><p>Adesina, Segun (1977); Planning and Educational Development in Nigeria. Lagos: Educational Industries Nigeria Ltd., pp. 163-186. Adesina, Segun (1988); The Development of Modern Education in Nigeria, Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books (Nigeria) Ltd., pp. 161-189.</p><p>Akinkugbe, O.O. (1983); Random Thoughts on the Emerging Nigerian University in: 20 Years of University Education in Nigeria, pp. 57-61.</p><p>Aminu, J. (1977); The Management of Nigerian Universities. Lecture Delivered at the Institute of Administration, University of Ife, 16th March, 1977. Published in the Quarterly Journal of Administration, University of Ife, 1978.</p><p>Aminu, Jibril (1983); The Factor of Centralization in Two Decades of Nigerian University Development in 20 Years of University Education in Nigeria, pp. 22-56.</p></div><h3></h3><br> <br><p></p>