By George Ozalla
The Joint Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on Education have examined proposed amendments to the National Senior Secondary Education Commission Act, with lawmakers and education stakeholders expressing divergent views on funding arrangements, institutional administration and the management of public senior secondary schools in Nigeria.
The deliberations took place on Thursday, October 29, 2026, during a public hearing organised by the Senate Committee on Education (Basic and Secondary) and the House of Representatives Committee on Basic Education and Services at the National Assembly, Abuja.
The hearing was co-chaired by the Senate Committee Chairman, Senator Lawal Adamu Usman, and his House of Representatives counterpart, Hon. Mark Bako Useni, PhD.
The proposed amendment, which comprises Senate Bill 1075 and House Bill 2970, seeks to strengthen the administration, coordination, financing and governance of senior secondary education across the country.
One of the major issues that generated debate was a proposal to remove the mandatory five per cent counterpart funding requirement imposed on states seeking federal government intervention funds for senior secondary education.
While proponents of the amendment argued that the existing requirement could prevent financially constrained states from accessing essential educational resources, some lawmakers maintained that state governments must demonstrate financial commitment to the development of their public schools.
A lawmaker opposed to the proposed removal questioned why states should be exempted from contributing to the development of their education systems, particularly following the increased revenue accruing to them after the removal of fuel subsidy.
He recalled that lawmakers had, at an earlier retreat, contacted some state governors over their failure to provide counterpart funding, an intervention which reportedly encouraged some states to fulfil their obligations and access available intervention funds.
The proponents of the amendment, however, maintained that the Federal Government’s responsibility to improve access to quality education should not be undermined by the inability of some states to meet the financial requirement.
They explained that the proposed amendment would introduce a performance-based funding arrangement under which access to intervention funds would depend on measurable results, approved educational programmes and verified project implementation.
Under the proposed framework, states would first conduct needs assessments of their public senior secondary schools and submit action plans identifying infrastructure deficiencies, shortages of teaching and learning materials, laboratory requirements and other areas requiring intervention.
The National Senior Secondary Education Commission would subsequently examine the submissions, agree on priority projects with the relevant state education authorities and enter into performance agreements specifying the approved projects and expected outcomes.
Funding would be released in instalments, with subsequent payments tied to monitoring reports, verification exercises and evidence that previously released funds had been properly utilised.
The proponents further explained that auditors and monitoring teams would be engaged to inspect projects and prevent the diversion of education funds to unrelated government expenditure.
The Federal Ministry of Education also supported several proposed amendments, including the removal of mandatory PhD qualifications for the Commission’s part-time chairman and executive secretary.
The Ministry argued that the Commission had moved beyond its initial establishment stage and also recommended the removal of provisions for federal government take-off grants.
On the five per cent counterpart funding requirement, the Ministry proposed replacing the existing arrangement with a performance-based funding model that would assess states according to their implementation of approved educational programmes.
It further recommended replacing the words “disbursement” and “disbursed” with “allocation” and “allocated” in relevant provisions of the Act, explaining that allocation would determine the funds assigned to beneficiaries, while actual disbursement would depend on compliance with agreed conditions.
The proposed amendment also seeks to establish two major funding channels: allocations to state education boards and the Federal Capital Territory, as well as direct interventions by the Commission in states to implement national programmes and maintain uniform educational standards.
Another issue considered by the lawmakers was the proposed restructuring of state education boards, including the separation of the chairmanship from executive administration.
Under the arrangement, a part-time chairman would provide policy direction and oversight, while an executive secretary would serve as the chief accounting officer and supervise the day-to-day administration of the board.
The scope of federal intervention in public senior secondary schools also attracted attention, with a lawmaker questioning provisions that appeared to restrict direct intervention to selected institutions, including Federal Unity Colleges and schools operated by the military and police.
He argued that state-owned public secondary schools should not be excluded from the benefits of federal intervention, urging the committees to reconsider the relevant provisions.
The proponents acknowledged the concerns and indicated that the provisions would be reviewed to accommodate a broader scope of intervention.
Meanwhile, the Federal Capital Territory Secondary Education Board supported the proposed reforms, identifying inadequate infrastructure, insufficient teaching and learning materials, poorly equipped laboratories and the need for sustained teacher development as major challenges confronting public senior secondary schools.
The Board called for clearly defined responsibilities between the Commission and state education authorities to avoid duplication of functions and administrative conflicts.
It also recommended transparent funding criteria that would take into consideration student population, the number of schools and the extent of existing infrastructure deficiencies.
On their part, the Academic Staff Union of Secondary Schools (ASUSS) and the All Nigeria Confederation of Principals of Secondary Schools (ANCOPSS) demanded stronger representation for teachers and school administrators in the governance of senior secondary education.
Presenting its position, ASUSS National President, Comrade Sola Adigun, argued that organised secondary school teachers deserved statutory representation in the National Senior Secondary Education Commission and corresponding state education boards.
The union maintained that it had members in more than 24 states of the federation and exclusively represented secondary school teachers in over 12 states.
It stressed that teachers, who are directly responsible for implementing educational policies in classrooms, should have a recognised voice in decisions affecting their professional responsibilities and the quality of education.
ASUSS also proposed the appointment of full-time chairmen for state-level education boards, arguing that effective administration required consistent leadership, regular supervision and sustained policy coordination.
The union, however, supported the proposed removal of mandatory PhD qualifications for the chairman and executive secretary, maintaining that relevant professional qualifications, competence and experience in educational administration should receive adequate consideration.
It equally supported the inclusion of the 110 Federal Unity Secondary Schools, Armed Forces Secondary Schools and public secondary schools in the FCT within the Commission’s coverage.
The hearing also witnessed differing positions over the representation of teachers in education governance, as the Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT) reportedly maintained that it was the only organisation representing teachers in the country.
The disagreement did not prevent the proceedings from continuing, as attention returned to the substantive provisions of the proposed amendment.
At the conclusion of the technical session, the joint committees assured stakeholders that their written submissions, observations and recommendations would receive consideration in the legislative process.
A representative of the committees explained that the National Assembly was making laws in the interest of Nigerians and not for the legislature or the executive, assuring participants that their contributions would help improve the proposed legislation.
