The Federal Government’s plan to phase out the Junior Secondary School (JSS)–Senior Secondary School (SSS) system deserves more scrutiny than a simple decision to abolish the policy. Rather than assuming that the separation of the two levels is responsible for the country’s growing number of school dropouts, the government should first commission a comprehensive professional assessment of the policy and its implementation.
The relevant authorities, education professionals, teachers, parents and other stakeholders should be given the opportunity to determine what went wrong, whether the original objectives remain relevant and, most importantly, whether the problems are caused by the policy itself or by failures in its implementation.
If the assessment establishes that the policy has not achieved its objectives because some stakeholders failed to perform their responsibilities effectively, the logical response should be to correct those failures and strengthen implementation. The policy should only be discarded when there is broad and compelling evidence that it has become fundamentally incapable of delivering the desired results.
Education is too important to national development to be subjected to frequent policy reversals. Governments must resist the temptation to cancel policies whenever implementation produces unintended problems. In many circumstances, the appropriate response is to repair and improve a policy rather than throw it away.
The Minister of Education, Dr Tunji Alausa, recently renewed the debate when he announced that the Federal Government was considering phasing out the policy that separates JSS from SSS, with the two levels currently operating independently, often with different principals and facilities.
Speaking at the inauguration of the Universal Basic Education Commission (UBEC) Ministerial Implementation and Monitoring Committee in Abuja, Alausa argued that the arrangement had failed to achieve its objectives and was contributing to the disruption of children's education.
‘We have 20 million dropouts from primary school to JSS. Where are those students? We also found we have 80,000 public primary schools and only about 15,000 junior secondary schools. That is about a one-to-eight ratio,’ Alausa lamented.
He was unequivocal in his assessment of the policy.
‘This disarticulation policy has failed. We will phase it out. We can’t be creating positions because we want to create a director level for people while we harm our education system. It is about doing what is best for every Nigerian child.’
According to the minister, the proposal to abolish the arrangement is intended to expand access to education and improve learning outcomes. He said the proposal would be presented to the National Council on Education for consideration.
The proposed change would effectively reopen an old debate about the structure of Nigeria’s education system. The separation of JSS and SSS was introduced as part of the 6-3-3-4 educational model, under which children spend six years in primary school, three years in junior secondary school, three years in senior secondary school and four years in higher education.
The model was not designed merely to rearrange classrooms and administrative structures. One of its important objectives was to expose young people to vocational, technical and practical skills at the junior secondary level. The underlying expectation was that students would acquire useful skills that could improve their employability and, where necessary, enable them to become self-reliant.
That objective remains relevant today.
Nigeria is struggling with high unemployment, widespread economic hardship and a growing youth population. Technical and vocational skills are central to industrial development, innovation and technological advancement. Countries seeking to strengthen their economies cannot afford to produce generations of young people who possess academic qualifications but lack practical skills.
It is therefore necessary to ask whether the problem lies with the concept of separating JSS from SSS or with the manner in which the policy has been implemented.
The minister's claim that the policy has contributed to the country's alarming dropout figures deserves serious investigation. But before the government reaches the conclusion that the policy itself is responsible, it must establish the evidence.
A sound diagnosis is indispensable to a sound remedy.
The concerns raised by the minister about the ratio between primary and junior secondary schools are certainly significant. If there are substantially more public primary schools than JSS facilities, then children completing primary education may face serious difficulties in finding places in junior secondary schools. That is a genuine access problem.
But does that automatically mean the JSS-SSS policy has failed?
Could the problem instead be inadequate investment in junior secondary schools? Could it be poor planning, insufficient infrastructure, shortages of teachers, weak monitoring or failures by government agencies responsible for implementing the policy?
These questions cannot be answered through policy declarations alone. They require reliable data and a detailed evaluation involving education experts and practitioners.
There is also a need for consistency in policymaking. The minister's recent position on the JSS-SSS structure follows other controversial changes in the education sector, including his decision to revoke the National Language Policy concerning the use of indigenous languages as a medium of instruction.
Such major policy reversals require strong evidence. Government should be able to demonstrate clearly what went wrong, what evidence supports the conclusion and why cancellation is preferable to reform.
It would be dangerous to assume that every policy producing undesirable outcomes is inherently defective. Policies can encounter problems because of poor funding, weak supervision, inadequate infrastructure, institutional resistance or failure by relevant stakeholders to discharge their responsibilities.
In such cases, the answer is not necessarily cancellation.
The danger of abandoning policies too readily is that the country may repeatedly discard years of planning, expertise and investment without addressing the underlying problems that caused failure in the first place.
The Federal Government must also recognise that the JSS-SSS structure is unlikely to be the principal cause of all the factors driving children out of school.
Nigeria's escalating insecurity is one of the most obvious threats to education. Across the country, pupils, students and teachers have increasingly faced the danger of kidnapping and terrorism. In communities where schools are perceived as unsafe, parents may understandably hesitate to send their children to school, while children who remain in classrooms may struggle to concentrate when they fear for their safety.
Poverty is another powerful factor.
The economic hardship confronting millions of Nigerian families has made it increasingly difficult for parents and guardians to meet the direct and indirect costs of educating their children. Even where tuition is nominal or education is officially free, families still face expenses relating to uniforms, transportation, books, food and other necessities.
There is also the question of what awaits young people after graduation.
Thousands of Nigerian graduates leave universities and other higher institutions every year only to encounter a difficult labour market. This reality can weaken the perceived value of education among young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. If young Nigerians and their parents see years of schooling ending without meaningful employment opportunities, the incentive to remain in school inevitably suffers.
These problems will not disappear merely because JSS and SSS are brought under one administrative structure.
A new educational arrangement cannot by itself end kidnapping. It cannot eliminate poverty. It cannot create enough jobs for graduates. Nor can it automatically persuade families facing severe economic difficulties to keep their children in school.
This is why the government's response to the dropout crisis must be broader than structural reform.
The National Council on Education should therefore approach the proposal with caution. It should demand evidence, consult widely and distinguish between defects in policy design and failures in implementation before reaching a final decision.
If the JSS-SSS arrangement is found to be fundamentally flawed, the government should not hesitate to reform it. But if the evidence shows that the policy's objectives remain valuable and that its problems are largely the result of poor implementation, then the responsible course would be to fix the system.
Nigeria cannot afford endless policy somersaults in education. Frequent changes undermine public confidence, disrupt institutions, confuse teachers and students, and waste scarce public resources.
The country needs stability, but stability does not mean refusing to reform. It means making reforms based on evidence, professional expertise and long-term national interest.
Whatever structure the government ultimately adopts, one principle should remain non-negotiable: Nigerian children and young people must leave school with knowledge and practical skills that enable them to participate meaningfully in the economy.
The National Council on Education should therefore ensure that vocational and technical education remains central to any revised system. Scrapping the JSS-SSS structure without preserving its intended emphasis on practical skills could amount to solving one problem while creating another.
The objective should not simply be to produce more educated Nigerians. It should be to produce Nigerians who are educated, skilled, productive and capable of contributing to national development.
If something in the system is broken, fix it. If implementation has failed, strengthen it. But before scrapping an entire policy, the government must first prove that the policy itself—not the failure to properly implement it—is the real problem.
The future of millions of Nigerian children is too important to be decided by another policy somersault.