Teachers’ Challenges in the Introduction and Implementation of Systemic Change in the Nigerian Primary School System

Abstract

The Nigerian primary school system has recently undergone a major change. School system change can be either piecemeal or systemic. Systemic change provides a framework for an all-inclusive model of change that relies on locally-driven, system-wide change guided by stakeholders through ongoing collaboration and joint ownership of the change process. Teachers are key roleplayers who can either positively or negatively affect the successful implementation of school system change. This research aimed to explore teachers’ challenges in the introduction and implementation of systemic change in the Nigerian primary school system. We used system theory as the theoretical framework to inform the study. This qualitative study is located in a constructivist research paradigm. One-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers. Teachers’ challenges included the non-involvement of stakeholders in the change planning process, incorrect statistical data, inadequate funding, teacher demotivation, poor channels of communication, political influence, misappropriation and embezzlement of funds, and poor monitoring and evaluation of the change. Effective school system change requires a systemic approach to change that encompasses all tiers of a school system. The findings provide insight into how future change in the Nigerian primary school system could be conducted more effectively than in the past.

Keywords

Nigeria school system change systemic change systems theory

Introduction

Before, during, and after the colonial dispensation, Nigeria experienced many changes in its education system. However, Fabunmi (2005) opines that since independence in 1960, the Nigerian education system, across all levels, has not addressed the learning needs, interests, and aspirations of Nigerian society. In an attempt to indigenize the Nigerian primary school system, the 1969 curriculum conference focused on Nigerian children in Nigerian society. National policies on education followed in 1977, 1981, 1998, and 2004, all to improve the quality of Nigerian education. Nevertheless, Uwaifo and Uddin (2009) report that the result of these changes has been described by some Nigerian education scholars such as Fafunwa (1982), Obanya (1982), and Nduka (1984) as parochial, elitist, regurgitative, and unresponsive to the needs and aspirations of Nigerian society. Azike (2013) similarly reports that the primary school system in Nigeria since independence has been narrow in scope, lacks proper implementation, is not functional, and has not met the local peculiarities, hopes, and ambitions of Nigerians.

Major reasons for changes in the Nigerian primary school system include dissatisfaction with the curriculum, keeping up with emergent national issues, the need to improve the standard of education, future expectations of the citizenry, and being a signatory to numerous international conventions and agreements, such as Education For All (EFA) in 1990, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000, and the Dakar Framework for Action in 2000 (Adebule, 2014; Alabi & Okemakinde, 2010). Aluede (2006) remarks that many of the changes in the Nigerian primary school system are the product of confusion, while Ikechukwu (2015) claims that it is obvious that the Federal Government is confused about the education system. For Obanya (2011), the failure of Nigeria over the years to adhere to the principles and values of educational change has led to no appreciable progress in education and investment in education has not yielded the expected results.

Owing to the dynamic nature of the world we live in, change in a school system is inevitable. School change can be either piecemeal or systemic (Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010). Piecemeal change is “an approach that, at its worst, does more harm than good and at its best, is limited to creating temporary pockets of ‘good’ which is not a good system in an educational setting” (Duffy et al., 2006, p. 41). Systemic change cuts across all levels of a school system and includes the classroom, buildings, community, and the local, state, and federal government regarding the learning experiences in, and the administrative and government processes that guide, an entire school system (Fullan, 2009). It relies on locally-driven, holistic change guided by stakeholders through ongoing collaboration and joint ownership of a change process (Sullivan et al., 2015). Unless the change is effective at a local level, it will not work at a system level, no matter how good the innovation may be (Sherry, 2002). Furthermore, systemic change requires resources in the form of people, money, supplies, facilities, and time to learn and experiment.

The voice and contribution of stakeholders such as employers, school board members, administrators, teachers, students, parents, business people, religious groups, social services, the justice system, and political leaders have a significant role to play in systemic school change (Ellsworth, 2000). Among these stakeholders, Moore (2006) states that teachers are uniquely situated to be the catalyst for systemic school change. Globally, teachers are pivotal in school system change and the critical factor to be considered in any effort aimed to improve educational quality (Omotayo, 2011). Nakpodia (2011) states that “no educational system can rise above the quality of its teachers” (p. 160). Jekayinfa (2007) and Fullan (2007) assert that teachers are essential inputs in, and implementers of, school system change and that for school system change to succeed, teachers must be a major part of the process.

To date, negligible research has been conducted in Nigeria on systemic school change and even less, if any, has been approached from the teachers’ perspective. Since teachers have an important and inevitable role to play in the process of systemic school change, their perspective is important. Research shows that previous primary school system change in Nigeria has generally been unsuccessful and lacked meaningful teacher participation and ownership. In light of teachers’ key role in school system change, this article aimed to explore teachers’ challenges in the introduction and implementation of systemic change in the Nigerian primary school system.

Systemic Change

A systemic approach to school change was pioneered by Banathy (1991) and made popular by Reigeluth (1995; Hsu & Sharma, 2008). From the systems thinking perspective, systemic means arising from the structure of the system and affecting the general behavior of the entire system as opposed to a single organ (Thwink.org Inc., 2014). Systemic change occurs when change pervades most or all parts of a system, considering the interrelationships and interdependencies among those parts (Sullivan et al., 2015). Taylor (2016, p. 2) describes systemic change as a thoughtful premeditated process to “alter the status quo” by changing the “function or structure” of a particular system to bring about enduring change through the alteration of the underlying structures and supporting mechanisms (such as values, relationships, policies, power structures, routines, and resources) which allow the system to function in a specific way. Systemic change is a framework for a holistic paradigm shift that involves giving attention to every aspect of a system because of those aspects’ innate interdependencies (Sullivan et al., 2015). Watson and Watson (2013) see systemic change as “a body of thinking concerned with the design of an entirely new system rather than trying to fix a system that was never designed to deal with the challenges and processes it currently face(s)” (p. 43). Menchaca et al., (2003) describe systemic school change as a democratic process to transform the values, principles, and practices of a school system within a changing complex and interrelated environment. In the context of this study, systemic change can be described as a fundamental transformation of a school system that affects multiple levels of that system. It embraces states, local government (districts), and schools. Such change intends to influence every student and staff member in the system with the express purpose of achieving common educational objectives. All components of a school system, such as the employers, teachers, students, parents, community, and other stakeholders, should participate in such a change process for it to be effective (Hawley, 1997). A change process that excludes key system stakeholders is unlikely to be successful. Stakeholders translate educational policy change into practice and can ensure the realization of policy objectives (Oyedeji, 2015). Their participation is important in reducing resistance to the adoption of, and in creating commitment to, change, in improving the quality of ideas and solutions to problems, in ensuring the contextual relevance of change, and in the smooth diffusion and sustainability of change—thereby ensuring policy effectiveness and efficiency (Duffy et al., 2006; Jenlink et al., 1998).

Conceptual Framework for Successful Systemic Change

The conceptual framework for this article was based on Joseph and Reigeluth’s (2010) systemic change process. Joseph and Reigeluth (2010) developed a conceptual framework of systemic change grounded in systems theory, specifically soft systems theory and critical systems theory. Soft systems theory in particular is aligned with the constructivist orientation of the study. This framework provided a lens through which to make sense of school system change (Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010). Joseph and Reigeluth’s (2010) elements of systemic change are broad stakeholder ownership, development of a learning organization, understanding the systemic change process, evolving mindsets about education, systems view of schooling, and systems design (Figure 1).

Conceptual Framework for a Systemic Change Process

Process

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework for systemic change process (Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010, p. 99).

Broad Stakeholder Ownership

Broad stakeholder ownership is the foundation of the conceptual framework upon which the other aspects of the framework are built (Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010). Banathy (1992) (cited in Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010) states that it is wrong to design a system for people. It is imperative to consider the users of the system as the real experts and involve them in the change process. Such involved stakeholders are likely to commit to and take ownership of a change process (Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010).

Learning Organization

Joseph and Reigeluth (2010) describe a learning organization as “a system-level concept with particular characteristics or a metaphor for the ideal organization” (p. 102) Such an organization engages in organization learning to achieve this ideal. Organization learning focuses on developing common understandings, honesty, and trust through dialogue, sharing, and managing the inevitable conflict involved. A learning organization integrates the other elements of systemic school change.

Understanding the Systemic Change Process

Before a change in any school system can occur, all involved stakeholders must understand what systemic change is and what it entails (Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010). Joseph and Reigeluth (2010) outline four essential features of systemic school change: the ultimate goal of any systemic change process is to develop a school system where all teachers succeed in helping students succeed; changing a school system involves changing mindsets; small process teams (five or six stakeholders) must be utilized to carry out a systemic change process; and communication and effective dialogue are key as they allow stakeholders to understand and appreciate one another’s diverse opinions, values, and beliefs.

Evolving Mindsets About Education

A mindset can be described as the mental model people adopt in solving problems or confronting challenges (Richter & Reigeluth, 2007). Senge (1990) describes mental models as the “assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action” (p. 6). To create a new school system, stakeholders must “test old assumptions, discard old beliefs and reshape old attitudes” (Duffy, 2007, p. 1).

A Systems View of Education

According to Banathy (1992), “the systems view helps us to understand the true nature of education as a complex, open, and dynamic human activity system that operates in ever-changing multiple environments and interacts with a variety of societal systems” (p. 17). Helping educational stakeholders to acquire a systems view of education facilitates the major work of the systems change process—evolving mindsets (Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010, p. 108).

Systems Design

A systemic change process must be based on systems design: “systems design in the context of any human system is a future-creating activity” (Banathy, 1991, p. 165). Creating a systems design in schools means disregarding obsolete schooling practices and replacing them with an ideal design (Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010). This process entails putting aside the current system and going beyond it; foreseeing an image of the anticipated system; designing the process in such a way that after its implementation it will have transformed the current system into the desired system; and presenting a prototype(s) of the designed system and making plans for the designed system’s implementation (Banathy, 1992 cited in Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010).

In conclusion, education stakeholders who wish to bring about fundamental change need to create mechanisms for carrying out all six functions in Joseph and Reigeluth’s (2010) framework. The framework also provides policymakers with an understanding of the kind of support and activities that are needed for systemic change to succeed.

Methodology

This study is located in the constructivist research paradigm, which aims to understand “the world of human experience” (Cohen & Manion, 1994, p. 36), as “socially constructed” (Mertens, 2005, p. 12) by the research participants. We inductively developed a “pattern of meanings” (Creswell, 2003, p. 9) from the participants’ responses. A qualitative research approach was adopted, as “qualitative research is a set of interpretive approaches aimed to study things in their natural settings” (Creswell, 2007, p. 37), in our case, teachers’ challenges experienced in the introduction and implementation of systemic change in the Nigerian primary school system. We followed a generic qualitative research design that “simply seeks to discover and understand a phenomenon, a process or the perspectives” (Merriam, 1998, p. 11) of the research participants.

Owing to the exploratory nature of the research, we employed purposeful sampling, which is typically associated with qualitative research (Klenke, 2008). Purposeful sampling entails selecting research participants who are best placed to address the research aim (Burns & Grove, 2003). Neuman (2007) argues that there are no detailed statistical formulas for the number of participants to be interviewed in qualitative research. Therefore, 10 teachers were selected who had been teaching for a minimum of both 3 years, before and after at least one system-wide change in public primary schools in Nigeria. The teaching experience of participants ranged from 12 to 34 years, with an age range of 38 to 60 years. Of the eight states and the Federal Capital Territory that comprise the middle belt of the country (based on geographical representation), the research was conducted in five states. The middle belt of the country is a mixture of minor and major ethnic groups coexisting together. This region is in the center of Nigeria and stretches from west to east. It shares boundaries with the southern and northern parts of the country. To explore the experience of the participants from different contexts, two teachers were selected from each state: one from a rural area and the other from an urban settlement.

Qualitative research is most associated with interviews (Turner, 2010) and allows the researcher to interpret individuals’ views and experiences based on interviews conducted with them (Merriam, 2002). One of the researchers first conducted two pilot interviews to assess the viability and appropriateness of the interview approach, as well as to ascertain any logistical challenges with the interview procedure. A pilot can help improve the quality and efficiency of one’s research (Hazzi & Maldaon, 2015). As a result of the pilot, we corrected language errors, improved question clarity, ensured interviews were held in quiet venues away from potential distractions and allowed the research participants to direct the flow of conversation rather than sticking doggedly to an interview protocol.

Audio-recorded semi-structured interviews were conducted with each of the 10 teachers. A semi-structured interview allows the interviewer to ask questions, listen attentively, be flexible, pause when necessary, explore the perceptions of the respondent, probe appropriately, and inspire the interviewee to talk freely, all of which creates a stress-free environment for interviewees (Cohen et al., 2011; Gray, 2013). English was used as the medium of communication; however, participants were free to express themselves in their dialect when they chose to do so. The interviews explored the participants’ experience of their challenges in the introduction and implementation of systemic change in the Nigerian primary school system.

We used Creswell’s (2012) guidelines for qualitative content analysis to analyze our data. As soon as an interview was concluded, the entire interview was transcribed verbatim. We then read through the transcripts twice to familiarize ourselves with the participants’ responses. Thereafter, we coded and categorized the data, which was followed by a thematic presentation and discussion of our data. The presentation and discussion were guided by our research aim and informed by the research literature. Finally, we derived recommendations based on our findings. We also kept a journal to reflect on the research process (Vaara & Whittington, 2012) and applied standard procedural ethical measures such as the participants’ voluntary participation and right to withdraw, the maintaining of confidentiality and anonymity, the use of pseudonyms, and the informed consent and privacy of participants (Saunders et al., 2009).

Findings and Discussion

This article aimed to explore teachers’ challenges in the introduction and implementation of systemic change in the Nigerian primary school system. The findings established that teachers experienced a myriad of challenges in the introduction and implementation of systemic change in the Nigerian primary school system. These are the non-involvement of stakeholders in the planning process, inaccurate statistical data, inadequate funding, poor motivation, poor communication channels, political influence, misappropriation and embezzlement of funds, and poor monitoring and evaluation systems.

Non-Involvement of Stakeholders in the Planning Process

Few school system stakeholders are involved in the change process. For example, one research participant observed that:

In planning, there are some people who are supposed to be involved, who are not involved … to me, some of those people who are supposed to be involved include teachers that will carry out or implement this proposed change … they are not properly carried along. The NGOs and the parents are supposed to be involved in the planning process to buy their commitment in the success of the change, but they were not involved. In most cases, it is the government that will just organise the programme, and then maybe at the implementation of the programme they will just throw it to people who will use it.

On a similar note, another participant remarked:

You know when they started this change, we in the classroom system were not carried along, and all we just see is that the educational secretary was asked to come for public enlightenment. They have finished planning everything, they brought handbills and flyers to us to start telling people that the educational system has been changed; we are just following them dogmatically without knowing what and how it was prepared.

Participants identified the non-involvement of stakeholders in the planning process as one of the major challenges in the introduction and implementation of systemic change in the Nigerian primary school system. These stakeholders include teachers, parents, students, and non-government agencies. This concurs with the findings of Oyedeji (2015), that education policies and systems in Nigeria are mostly initiated, determined, and directed by the government. As a result, many excellent, well-designed change programs have failed miserably when they “hit the ground” (Duffy et al., 2006, p. 44). Our finding is in stark contrast to Houston’s (2008) assertion that the public need to be integrally involved in change and need to know why change is necessary.

Inaccurate Statistical Data

The research participants were aware that statistical data used for Nigerian school system change planning is inaccurate. A participant noted: “You know, when you are planning, you plan based on data analysis, but our government at the planning stage has not actually regarded accurate data and statistics as an important factor.” On the same note, another participant stated:

It’s a great challenge to have inadequate statistical data… before you can embark on any change, it is good for you to understand your facts and you will now know where you are going to. If you are not having enough data and statistics about the old one, … it is a good thing for the government to know the actual number of the classrooms available and … the number of the students that materials and other equipment are to be provided for. It is possible for 50 textbooks to be supplied into a school where there are about 200 pupils, which means the system cannot work.

Reliable data has not been used for educational planning in Nigeria. In the absence of reliable needs analyses, Nigerian school system policies and resourcing are based on a good deal of guesswork (Gusau, 2008; Okoroma, 2006). Unit (2009) and Tsafe (2013) argue that basing education planning on a population census that is marred by massive inaccuracies negatively affects the provision of instructional materials such as textbooks, laboratory equipment, and audio-visual material among others, to schools. The success of any school system change depends upon the availability of reliable data (Ojulari, 2010).

Inadequate Funding

The financial implications of school change are often not appreciated. As a result of inadequate funding, infrastructure such as classrooms, libraries, laboratories, equipment, and materials such as textbooks, teaching aids, and computers are inadequate. In one participant’s experience: “Inadequate funding is a big challenge. The federal government is not releasing enough money for the new educational system. We need money for textbooks, teaching materials, even computers and so on.” In addition to being inadequate, the little funding that is provided is unevenly or unfairly distributed. According to a participant: “Inadequate and uneven distribution of materials is also one of the challenges we faced. Sometimes, some schools will be provided with material, while some will not be given.”

Inadequate funding for implementing school system change in Nigeria is a problem reported in almost every school system change implementation study that has been carried out in Nigeria (Okoroma, 2006). For example, Oyedeji (2015) reports that students learn in dilapidated buildings that have no furniture, no functional libraries, no laboratories, no instructional materials such as textbooks and no furniture for teachers. Adelman and Taylor (2003) found that “too many promising innovations disappear when project funding ends” (p. 1). The consequences of insufficient funding and the unequal allocation of resources are teacher frustration and demotivation, a lack of flexibility in the use of funds, an inability to budget and allocate resources effectively, and a failure to make resources available where they are most needed—all of which results in a damper being placed on the implementation of any school system change (Obanya, 2007; Okoroma, 2006; Omotayo, 2011).

Teacher Demotivation

Research participants reported that due to poor remuneration, the delay in or non-payment of salaries and leave bonuses, and other poor working conditions, Nigerian teachers are demotivated. The challenges associated with school system change add to this demotivation. A participant stated: “The teachers who are to implement this planning are not well motivated. Teachers were not given correct teaching aids; at times you leave teachers to operate under poor classroom conditions. Most of these classrooms are dilapidated and nothing is done to bring it into a good condition. Also, most especially, teachers’ salaries are so poor right now.” This has led to teachers paying lip service to school system change. Sometimes they resort to strike action: “We have up to three or four strikes in a year as a result of poor salary. This is causing a setback in the implementation of this policy” and “This non-payment of teachers… has been leading to incessant strikes which cannot bring a success to the system.”

Another demotivating factor for teachers is that there are insufficient teachers to implement school system change, and the ones who are available, are not equally and adequately trained to implement change. This in turn leads to school management forcing teachers to teach subjects in which they are not qualified. In a participant’s experience: “There’s this problem of inadequate teachers. We do face this problem in our school where we have overloading of work. In some schools where work is overloaded, the school management will be asking teachers the areas (subjects) they can handle apart from the areas of their specialization.” Uwaifo and Uddin (2009) and Okoroma (2006) found that the supply of qualified teachers is grossly inadequate for the successful implementation of any school system change in Nigeria. Ejere (2011) notes that several studies show that Nigerian teachers are poorly motivated, yet they are expected to play a pivotal role in the implementation of any school system change.

Poor Communication Channels

Poor channels of communication among school system stakeholders is another constraint in the introduction and implementation of systemic change in the Nigerian primary school system. A participant opined: “Concerning the communication process, passing of information about the new educational system from Federal to State to Local Government Areas to headmasters, before it gets to the teachers … there will be loss of information and waste of time in-between. Some programmes that supposed to have been executed, the information does come late.” Information either gets lost in transit before reaching teachers or arrives late. Teachers also find it difficult to access the policy guidelines for the new school system. Most of the research participants’ schools did not have the policy guidelines. Neither was the Local Government Education Authority (LGEA) office able to provide a copy of the policy guidelines. Teachers are ill-informed about new school system policies, particularly in rural areas, and communication is slow and inconsistent (Oyedeji, 2015). Nevertheless, teachers are expected to implement policies with no prior notice and with little information. According to Jenlink et al. (1998 cited in Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010), communication is an essential factor in a systemic change process because it provides the means for various stakeholders to develop a shared appreciation of a change and to act in unison in its implementation.

Political Influence

The teachers in the study believed that there is too much political interference in school system change. They observed that a change in government always affects the existing school system. One participant remarked: “As a result of political instability… what the current political government gives importance to, may not be paramount to the next government.” A new government invariably introduces school system change without considering the existing system. Existing systems and projects are abandoned for no apparent reason (Adebule, 2014). Governments often want to make political capital out of being seen to be doing something new. However, any political gains pale into insignificance compared to the consequences of discontinuity in the school system. Frequent changes in the Nigerian government tend to negatively affect the implementation of the National Policy on Education and consequently, the standard of education (Oyedeji, 2015).

The research participants also reported that politicians appoint their unqualified friends in senior school system positions which promotes mediocracy in the system. Politicians also award contracts to unqualified contractors which leads to poor quality work and the production and provision of irrelevant educational materials. A participant remarked:

Our educational resources are being politicised. Let me take, for example, some of these textbooks supplied to schools are contracted to non-professionals because they have politicians in government. They produce irrelevant textbooks and there is nobody to stop them or reject their work. They have people at the top of affairs. So, government just wastes money on irrelevant books which has an effect on implementing the new reform in education.

Political interference in the school system makes teachers feel powerless and is a further cause of their demotivation. One of the participants stated: “Politicians are the brain behind this lack of motivation for teachers because they determine the fate of the teachers they don’t pay. So, politicians are the cause of educational reform problems in this country.”

Misappropriation and Embezzlement of Education Funds

Participants reported on the misappropriation and embezzlement of school system funds: “As you and I know that Nigeria is a corrupt country. There is always misappropriation and embezzlement of funds. People at the realms of affairs embezzle the available funds meant to cater for the educational change.” These are funds slated for the payment of teachers’ salaries, for organizing teacher seminars and workshops, for the buying of teaching and learning materials, and for building infrastructure to accommodate educational changes. Teachers are grossly underpaid compared to other government employees:

There is this issue of poor salary. Somebody who is working as a teacher on GL 15 cannot be compared with somebody on GL 12 in another ministry. For instance, someone on grade level 14 is earning #140,000 (naira – our addition) whereas his counterparts in the primary school earn less than #70,000:00. The reason is that teachers’ salaries are so low; very, very small and annoying. In fact, the teaching job is so annoying. For instance, the politicians like the council leader taking a monthly salary that is even more than a teacher’s annual salary whereas their qualification is lower than yours.

Okoroma (2006) found that the embezzlement and misappropriation of educational funds is a major factor in the failure of the Nigerian National Policy on Education and other educational policies.

Poor Monitoring and Evaluation Systems

Participants indicated that poor monitoring and evaluation systems are some of the challenges affecting the introduction and implementation of systemic change in the Nigerian primary school system. For example, one observed

There’s a problem of monitoring and evaluation systems … in the issue of monitoring, nobody to monitor teachers’ classroom activities to see whatever they teach is in compliance with what is expected of them as regards the new educational system. The representatives from the Ministry of Education and LGEA office do not come at times for school supervision, to see if we are still in line with the proposed educational guidelines.

Participating teachers reported that school system officers in charge of monitoring seldom visit their schools to check their implementation of system changes. Furthermore, in those schools that are visited, monitoring teams devote most of their attention to bureaucratic compliance requirements such as time books, students’ attendance registers, work schemes, and records of work and lesson plans, at the expense of monitoring teachers’ classroom teaching. The teachers said that they would like to have one-on-one engagements with monitoring teams to help them (the teachers) understand school system changes and to be able to give the monitoring teams feedback on their experience of the changes. This is further evidence of a communication gap that hinders successful school system change. School systems change without competent and sustained supervision is unlikely to be successful (Azike, 2013; Omotayo, 2011).

Conceptual Learning

In light of the theoretical framework, teachers’ challenges in the introduction and implementation of systemic change in the Nigerian primary school system can be conceptualized under three headings. These are teacher exclusion from direct participation in the initiation, introduction, and implementation of systemic change in the Nigerian primary school system; the absence of a coherent systemic change process and an unconducive environment for school change at a systems level.

Teacher Exclusion From Direct Participation in Systemic Change

Teachers reported that they are on the receiving end of government-initiated and organized system-wide school change. They are simply expected to implement these changes. This divide between “planners and operators” (Schmuck & Runkel, 1994, p. 315) characterizes Nigerian school change (Oyedeji, 2015). This norm contrasts diametrically with a foundational principle of successful, sustained, and satisfying system change, viz direct stakeholder participation from the beginning of and throughout a systemic change process (Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010). This principle applies even more so to teachers (Fullan, 2007; Senge,1990). Teachers are the catalyst (Moore, 2006) for change and pivotal in its successful implementation (Sullivan et al., 2015). Their absence from or marginalization in the change process will likely undermine effective system change (Hawley, 1997). This suggests a lack of systemic change knowledge and understanding by politicians and education officialdom which has led to the ineffectiveness of system-wide change in the Nigerian primary school system.

The Absence of a Systemic Change Process

A systemic change process is preceded by stakeholders and role-players adopting a systems view of a system (Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010). Banathy (1992) explains the systems view and how it relates to a systemic change process, “The systems view helps us to understand the true nature of education as a complex, open, and dynamic human activity system that operates in ever-changing multiple environments and interacts with a variety of societal systems” (p. 17). Dialogue and communication among roleplayers are core components in a systemic change process. They allow participants to understand and appreciate their diverse opinions, values, and beliefs (Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010) and to begin to develop a shared picture of a future system (Banathy, 1991; Senge, 1990). The exclusion of teachers, the pivotal roleplayers in school system change, means there was no opportunity for dialogue, which is necessary to understand systemic change, to develop a systems view of the school system, and to enhance change readiness (Banathy, 1991). The exclusion of the teachers’ voices also stymied the dialogue necessary to question unquestioned assumptions (Duffy, 2007), change mindsets, which is the major work of the systems change process (Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010), and develop new mental models of what is possible and how to achieve it (Senge, 1990). Finally, the absence of any system-wide dialogue prevented the development and implementation of system-wide stakeholder change design (White, 2015) at the local level, using “process teams” consisting of five or six key roleplayers (Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010, p. 106).

An Unconducive Environment for System-Wide School Change

There is an unconducive environment at the school system level in Nigeria that works against teacher ownership, commitment, and morale. Joseph and Reigeluth’s systemic change framework does not take account of the broader socio-political context in which systemic change occurs, particularly in a developing context such as that in Nigeria. The research participants referred to three broad environmental influences. First, political influence. Often, unnecessary school system-wide changes are introduced by political leaders to immortalize their names, for self-aggrandizement or monetary gain. Nepotism is practiced in appointments and the awarding of contracts to unqualified contractors. There is misappropriation and embezzlement of funds slated for the payment of teachers’ salaries, for organizing seminars and workshops, for buying teaching and learning materials, and for infrastructural development.

Second, there are logistical challenges. The inaccurate population census and inadequate school system data negatively affect the equitable distribution of funds for infrastructural development and the provision of instructional materials to schools in an already resource-stretched system. This, in turn, leaves schools and teachers without adequate teaching facilities and resources. Besides the fact that teachers are overloaded, they are underpaid compared to other government employees and the government is often unable to pay teachers’ remuneration on time. Finally, top-down system-wide communication is poor. Research participants reported that information either gets lost in transit before it reaches teachers or arrives late. Communication is slow and often incomplete or inaccurate (Oyedeji, 2015).

Third, human resource support. Teachers feel unsupported by the school system, their local districts in particular. They are seldom visited and when they are, the officials are more interested in whether teachers meet bureaucratic compliance requirements than anything else. In contrast, teachers want to engage with school system officials about teaching matters. They also want to give officials feedback on their experience and challenges of school system change (Ender et al., 2007). This has all led to low teacher morale, a feeling of powerlessness, and little commitment to system-wide change.

Implications for Practice

Based on the findings and conceptual learning of this study, the following recommendations are made to address teachers’ challenges in the introduction and implementation of systemic change in the Nigerian primary school system.

Involvement of Teachers in the Introduction and Implementation of Change

For the introduction and implementation of change in the Nigerian primary school system to be effective, it is recommended that teachers, being one of the stakeholders that have been historically excluded from change processes (Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010), should be adequately involved throughout the change effort: from the planning, through the implementation to the evaluation. By including teachers in the change process, policymakers would have access to grass-roots information and experience, which could help them better contextualize change.

Accurate and Reliable Education Data Collection

Research shows that without reliable and accurate education data there can be no meaningful school system change (Ojulari, 2010). It is, therefore, recommended that timely, accurate, and reliable data be recorded by teachers at all levels of the school system, that is, schools, districts, states, and federal. Authentic data is necessary for equitable education planning (Tsafe, 2013).

Availability and Judicious Use of Funds and Infrastructure

The availability, equitable distribution, and judicious use of funds and infrastructure are critical for effective school system change (Omotayo, 2011). Adequate funding to cater for teacher preparation and remuneration and the infrastructure, equipment, and materials needed for any school system change needs to be in place before such change is implemented and must be fairly distributed based on each state’s known needs. This is likely to boost teacher morale and motivate them to be committed to change implementation.

Easy Access to Information

Since information is one of the cogent factors that aid the success and sustainability of school system change (Obanya, 2007), change information should be easily and timeously available to teachers, both in hard and soft copy, and irrespective of geographical location. A user-friendly interactive school system website where teachers can have swift access to information would also be of value.

Avoidance of Political Interference

As much as political will is indispensable for successful school system change, there should be a limit to politicians’ influence in schooling. School system change should be depoliticized by removing schooling from the sphere of politics and making it a purely constitutional matter where no single political party or politician, no matter how highly placed, will be able to change the school system unless an agreed-upon framework of systemic change, such as that discussed in this article, is adhered to. This could avert the incessant and unnecessary school system changes frivolously introduced by political leaders with the intent of immortalizing their name, for self-aggrandizement or monetary gain. This can also help eradicate the culture of school system change each time there is a change in the political leadership of the country.

Monitoring and Evaluation of the Change Process

Supervision and evaluation of school system change need to be carried out throughout and after a change process to quickly identify implementation loopholes and challenges (Azike, 2013). It should be managed by professionals known for their integrity. It is recommended that there be synergistic collaboration among teachers and other stakeholders at the three levels of government (federal, state, and local).

Limitations and Future Studies

The study was of limited scope. It involved a selection of public primary school teachers in the middle belt of the country only. Further research in the middle belt could include a large-scale survey to be able to generalize the results. Additionally, other stakeholders’ experiences, such as parents, learners, NGOs, traditional rulers, and religious leaders, of the introduction and implementation of systemic change in the Nigerian primary school system would expand our insight into what may help facilitate successful and sustained system-wide school change in a developing context. Furthermore, this study focused on the Nigerian primary school system. There may be value in similar studies being undertaken in the secondary and higher education systems, respectively. Finally, this article adopted a relatively orthodox approach to school system change. Further research would benefit from a more socio-politically contextualized approach.

Conclusion

This study aimed to explore teachers’ challenges in the introduction and implementation of systemic change in the Nigerian primary school system. The data show that foundational principles of successful and sustained system-wide change are not followed. These include direct role-players, in this case, teacher involvement and ownership, and understanding of systemic change and the systemic change process, in particular the need for role-player dialogue in questioning tacit assumptions and in evolving future-possibility mindsets. Nevertheless, even if systemic change principles were understood and practiced, one may question whether contextual factors relating to political interference, limited funding, capacity to deliver, and inadequate and inappropriate human resource support and development would still sabotage school system change in a developing context, such as that of Nigeria.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the University of Johannesburg.

ORCID iD

Oloba Peter Babajide

References

Adebule

O. I.

(2014). Reforms and innovation: A sure step towards qualitative education. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/REFORMS-AND-INNOVATION-%3A-A-SURE-STEP-TOWARDS-Adebule/ce58d00f858b50234e2bb5b3ae5ad698cb215da2

Adelman

H. S.

Taylor

(2003). On sustainability of project innovations as systemic change. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14(1), 1–26.

Alabi

Okemakinde

(2010). Effective planning as a factor of educational reform and innovation in Nigeria. Current Research Journal of Social Sciences, 2(6), 316–321.

Aluede

(2006). Universal basic education in Nigeria: Matters arising. Journal of Human Ecology, 20(2), 97–101.

Azike

A. A.

(2013). Historical analysis of constitutional provision for education in Nigeria (1976–2011): Implication for educational administration. Academic Research International, 4(3), 371–378.

Banathy

B. H.

(1991). Educational systems design: A journey to create the future. Educational Technology Publications.

Banathy

B. H

. (1992). A systems view of education. Educational Technology.

Burns

Grove

S. K.

(2003). Understanding nursing research (3rd ed.). Saunders Company.

Cohen

Manion

(1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). Routledge.

10.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Routledge.

11.

Creswell

J. W.

(2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). SAGE.

12.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE.

13.

Creswell

J. W.

(2012). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

14.

Duffy

F. M.

Reigeluth

C. M.

Solomon

Caine

Carr-Chellman

A. A.

Almeida

Frick

Thompson

Koh

Ryan

C. D.

(2006). The process of systemic change. Techtrends, 50(2), 41–51.

15.

Duffy

V. G.

(2007). Modified virtual build methodology for computer-aided ergonomics and safety. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 17(5), 413–422.

16.

Ejere

E. I.

(2011). An examination of critical problems associated with the implementation of the universal basic education (UBE) programme in Nigeria. International Education Studies, 4(1), 221–229.

17.

Ellsworth

J. B.

(2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. ERIC.

18.

Ender

K. E.

Kinney

B. J.

Penrod

W. M.

Bauder

D. K.

Simmons

(2007). Achieving systemic change with universal design for learning and digital content. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 4(1), 115–129.

19.

Fabunmi

(2005). Historical analysis of educational policy formulation in Nigeria: Implications for educational planning and policy. International Journal of African & African-American Studies, 4(2), 1–7.

20.

Fafunwa

A. B.

(1982). History of education in Nigeria. George Alien and Unwin Press.

21.

Fullan

(2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Columbia University.

22.

Fullan

(2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2–3), 101–113.

23.

Gray

D. E.

(2013). Doing research in the real world. SAGE.

24.

Gusau

B. U.

(2008). Educational reforms in Nigeria: Successive years of inconsistencies and confusions [Paper presentation]. Gusau Educational Development Association (GEDA), Interactive Session, Gusau, Zamfara State, Nigeria. http://www.gamji.com/article6000/news7831.htm

25.

Hawley

(1997). Systemic change in education: A road map. Educational Technology, 37(6), 57–64.

26.

Hazzi

Maldaon

(2015). A pilot study: Vital methodological issues. Business: Theory and Practice, 16(1), 53–62.

27.

Houston

(2008). Rethinking quality and improvement in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(1), 61–79.

28.

Hsu

Sharma

(2008). A case study of enabling factors in the technology integration change process. Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 213–228.

29.

Ikechukwu

E. C.

(2015). Towards a pragmatic system of education: A comparative study of Nigeria 6-3-3-4 and Chinese 9-3-4 system. International Journal of Education and Research, 3(5), 79–88.

30.

Jekayinfa

A. A.

(2007). An appraisal of governments’ preparedness in the provision of teachers for the take-off of UBE in Nigeria. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/APPRAISAL-OF-GOVERNMENT-PREPAREDNESS-IN-THE-OF-FOR-Jekayinfa/fc9a50aaefd15fd4242fb2f8d1d5f57c00a87787

31.

Jenlink

Reigeluth

Carr-Chellman

Nelson

(1998). Guidelines for facilitating systemic change in school districts. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 15, 217–233.

32.

Joseph

Reigeluth

C. M.

(2010). The systemic change process in education: A conceptual framework. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(2), 97–117.

33.

Klenke

(2008). Probability theory. Emerald Group Publishing.

34.

Menchaca

Bischoff

Dara-Abrams

(2003). International conference on education and information systems: Technology and applications (EISTA 03) [Conference session]. Conference proceedings of the 10th conference held in Y, Citeseer.

35.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass.

36.

Merriam

S. B.

(2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. Jossey-Bass.

37.

Mertens

D. M.

(2005). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). SAGE.

38.

Moore

(2006). The teacher education division and systemic change. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 50(2), 18–19.

39.

Nakpodia

(2011). Integrative funding and effective implementation of universal basic education programme in central senatorial district of Delta state, Nigeria. Journal of Economics and International Finance, 3(3), 157–167.

40.

Nduka

(1984). Western education and Nigerian cultural background. University Press.

41.

Neuman

W. L.

(2007). Basics of social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

42.

Obanya

(1982). The new national policy on education in Nigeria: Its prospects for the evolution of a new social order. Lux Mundi, 8(1), 43–50.

43.

Obanya

(2007). Education sector reform in Nigeria: A change management challenge. UNESCO.

44.

Obanya

(2011). Politics and the dilemma of meaningful access to education: The Nigerian story. Create pathways to access. Research monograph no. 56. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517695.pdf

45.

Ojulari

S. I.

(2010). Appropriate policy formulation and implementation as an impetus towards qualitative education in Nigeria. The Nigerian Journal of Research and Production, 19(1), 1–10.

46.

Okoroma

(2006). Educational policies and problems of implementation in Nigeria. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 46(2), 243–263.

47.

Omotayo

T. O.

(2011). Challenges of implementing universal basic education (UBE) in Nigeria especially as it affects teachers’ preparation. Multidisciplinary Journal of Research Development, 17(1), 1–11.

48.

Oyedeji

S. O.

(2015). Lapses in education policy formulation processes in Nigeria: Implications for the standard of education. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(29), 195–202.

49.

Reigeluth

C. M.

(1995). A conversation on guidelines for the process of facilitating systemic change in education. Systems Practice, 8(3), 315–328.

50.

Richter

Reigeluth

(2007). Systemic transformation in public school systems. The FM Duffy Reports, 12(4), 1–21.

51.

Saunders

Lewis

Thornhill

Wilson

(2009). Business research methods. Prentice-Hall.

52.

Schmuck

R. A.

Runkel

P. J.

(1994). The handbook of organization development in schools and colleges. Waveland.

53.

Senge

P. M.

(1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.

54.

Sherry

(2002). Sustainability of innovations. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 13(3), 211–238.

55.

Sullivan

A. L.

Artiles

A. J.

Hernandez-Saca

D. I.

(2015). Addressing special education inequity through systemic change: Contributions of ecologically based organizational consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25(2–3), 129–147.

56.

Taylor

(2016). Systems and systemic change – Clarity in concept. The springfield centre for business in development. The Springfield Centre. http://www.springfieldcentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Systemic-and-Systemic-Change-clarification-of-concept-V2-BT-260416.pdf

57.

Thwink.org Inc. (2014). Finding and resolving the root causes of the sustainability problem. Author. http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/Systemic.htm

58.

Tsafe

A. K.

(2013). A critical analysis of universal basic education on its implementation so far. Scientific Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 2(1), 23–34.

59.

Turner

D. W.

III . (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754–760.

60.

Unit

G. S.

(2009). Universal basic education in Nigeria: Challenges and way forward. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 6(5), 252–259.

61.

Uwaifo

Uddin

(2009). Transition from the 6-3-3-4 to the 9-3-4 system of education in Nigeria: An assessment of its implementation on technology subjects. Studies on Home and Community Science, 3(2), 81–86.

62.

Vaara

Whittington

(2012). Strategy-as-practice: Taking social practices seriously. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 285–336.

63.

Watson

W. R.

Watson

S. L.

(2013). Exploding the ivory tower: Systemic change for higher education. Techtrends, 57(5), 42–46.

64.

White

H. S.

(2015). Early childhood teacher perspectives of developmentally appropriate use of computer applications [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Walden University.