ENSURING EQUALITY OF ACCESS TO UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN A DEREGULATED EDUCATION SYSTEM

International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD) ISSN (P): 2249–6890; ISSN (E): 2249–8001 Vol. 11, Issue 2, Apr 2020, 63-74 © TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

ENSURING EQUALITY OF ACCESS TO UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN A DEREGULATED EDUCATION SYSTEM TIMOTHY EMEKA ASOGWA Department of Educational Foundations, Faculty of Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka

ABSTRACT The study focused on determining the equality of access to university education is guaranteed in Nigeria under the current deregulation system. Descriptive survey research design was adopted for the study using a sample 2,019 respondents (lecturers and students) in public and private universities. A 23-item questionnaire instrument was used for data. The instrument was face validated and trial tested. Data were analysed using mean to answer the research questions and t-test of independent samples to test the null hypotheses. The finding revealed that deregulation of education is then seen as widening the gap between the rich and the poor. The study also revealed that under deregulation of university education, university education ceases to accessed based on one’s ability to pay. Furthermore, the study showed various ways of improving equal access to university education. Among others, they include; increase in the funding of university education, removal of policies (like the quota system) that hamper equal access, involvement of the private sector in the funding of both public and private universities. Based on the findings, the researcher recommended, inter alia, that government should continually increase funding of university education so as to reduce the burden of fees on parents and thereby increase equal access.

Original Article

be a public good that should be equally accessible to all, it becomes next to a commodity that could only be

KEYWORDS: Deregulation, Equality of access & University Education System Received: Jan 25 2021; Accepted: Feb 15, 2021; Published: Mar 04, 2021; Paper Id.: IJMPERDAPR20217

INTRODUCTION According to Olatunji and Akanwa (2004), with deregulation, it is believed that an economy would perform better and more satisfactorily if there were less government regulations and control. In line with this, Okafor (2005) states that deregulation is anchored on an assumption that decreasing government regulations of industry creates more competitive markets that provide better services at lower costs to the consumer.

Proponents of this neo-liberal economic policy therefore advocate a paradigm shift from a public sectorled economy characterized by government restrictive control to an open and liberalized private sector - led economy characterized by emphasis on market–force driven competition, devoid of government control. This implies that public domain led economy involves the shift of assets initially held within the public sector towards more marketoriented management (Jaji, 2004). The logic here according to Asogwa & Asogwa (2010), is that private sector investment in and involvement in public enterprises ensures efficient management, adequate funding, healthy competition and the likes that cannot be in government monopoly. At this point a nation’s production of wealth is based on the free operations of business and trade without direct government control. Akpotu (2005) describes this www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

64

Timothy Emeka Asogwa

as ‘privatization of social functions and assets. Following this, Jaji (2004) states that deregulation is predicated on the assumption of state inefficiency and “absolute” efficiency of the market. In the same vein, Wokocha (2004) admits that states are known for gross inefficiency, operating at losses, lower return on investment and a drain on public funds.

Deregulation is therefore seen as a way out of the inefficiency of the state.

In South Eastern Nigeria, there are about eighteen (18) universities at present; among these are five (5) Federal and five (5) state Universities and eight (8) private universities (NUC, 2012). This is besides some other specialized colleges and institutions that are now degree awarding. Thousands are currently undertaking either full-time or part-time programmes in these various institutions.

With the private sector fully participating in the provision of university

education in Nigeria and with their established schools running side by side with government owned universities one can rightly say that university education, to a large extent, has been deregulated. But how much this expansion has translated into improved standard and increased equal access to education remains to be seen.

With deregulation in place, government withdrew food subsidies and/or reduced other grant-in-aid and has variously, over the years, charged universities, especially public universities that had hitherto enjoyed steady and nearsufficient funding, to seek alternative sources of fund so as to be financially less dependent on government. Each of these institutions, according to Akpotu (2005), has the freedom to determine the fees charged. Some of these fees appear to be not just on the very high side but appear prohibitive so much so that many eligible and able candidates seem unable to access university education because of financial incapability. Worst still, the private investors in university education expectedly desire good return on investment and, therefore, cannot reasonably be expected to run at a loss. Sequel to this, admission places seem to have been commercialized to the highest bidder with the high fees charged. In condemnation of this, Hayble (2005) laments that only the middle class and upper-class parents can secure admission for their children/off springs into such institutions. Such middle- and upper-class children therefore appear to have unfair advantage of potential successes over their poor, unfortunate counterparts. Deregulation, therefore, seem to usher in a regime of high fees. This scenario, it appears, seem to limit admission to university education to one’s financial capability rather than by merit or abilities.

Contrary to this, access to education is expected to be a matter of right and not privilege. Oguntuase (2005) corroborates this when he observed that educational opportunity should be a birth right and not a privilege of every citizen of any nation. This is mainly because education is a public good, thus, it is not expected to be an exclusive preserve of a privileged few, rather it is expected to be made equally and adequately accessible to all. Based on the forgoing, the researcher took up this research to ascertain how equality of access to university education can be ensured in a deregulated education system. Thus, the following objectives were pursued by the researcher: 

The degree to which deregulation widens the gap between the rich and the poor in accessing university education.



Ways of improving equality of access to university education in a deregulated education system.

Research Questions The following research questions were answered for the study. 

To what degree does deregulation widen the gap between the rich and the poor?



What are the ways of improving equality of access to university education in deregulated education system?

Impact Factor (JCC) 9.6246

NAAS Rating: 3.11

Ensuring Equality of Access to University Education in a Deregulated Education System

65

Hypotheses The following hypotheses were tested at 0.05 level of significance.

Ho1: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of respondents in public and private universities on the degree to which deregulation widen the gap between the rich and the poor.

Ho2: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of respondents in public and private universities on the ways of improving equality of access to university education in deregulated education system.

METHODS Design of the Study Descriptive survey research design was adopted for this study. According to Eze (2005) the descriptive survey design uses reliable techniques to collect data from a well-defined population or systematically selected segments of the population for the purpose of determining the attributes of the entire population. This kind of design has been used recently by Eze et al.

(2020), Okeke et al. (2020a, b), Ugwuanyi et al. (2020), Okenyi et al. (2021), Ezema et al. (2021) in similar studies.

Population and sample size for the Study The population for the study is 244,024 made up of 8,703 lecturers and 235,321 students of the 18 universities in South East Nigeria. Sample of 2,019 respondents comprising 1507 public university respondents (lecturers and students) and 512 private university respondents (lecturers and students) was used for the study. The proportionate stratified sampling technique was used to draw 1% of the lecturers and students in each of the 18 universities. The proportionate stratified sampling technique was used in selecting the lecturers and the students to ensure that the relative proportions of these respondents are the same.

Instrument for Data Collection The instrument used was a structured questionnaire titled Deregulation of University Education Appraisal Questionnaire (DUEAQ). The researcher developed the DUEAQ from the relevant literature reviewed. The DUEAQ is a 23-item questionnaire divided into two sections: A and B. While Section A is on the demographic data of the respondents, Section B, had two clusters A and B. Cluster ‘A’ sought information on the degree to which deregulation widens the gap between the rich and the poor, while Cluster ‘B’ focused on ways of improving access to university education under deregulation.

The DUEAQ was modelled on a four-point rating scale, of Very high degree (VHD), High degree (HD), Little degree (LD), Very little degree (VLD) rated 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively, for cluster A and response options of Strongly agree (SA), Agree (A) Disagree (D) and Strongly Disagree (SD) rated in the four-point rating scale for Cluster B. Validation and Reliability of the Instrument The instrument was face-validated by three experts: two in Philosophy of Education, and one in Measurement and Evaluation.

They were requested to study the items and assess the instrument in terms of language, relevance,

comprehensibility and comprehensiveness bearing in mind the purpose of the study. Their corrections and comments were used to modify the questionnaire.

In order to ensure the reliability of the instrument, a trial test exercise was carried out using twenty-five respondents. The Cronbach Alpha method was used to compute the internal consistency reliability of the items of the

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

66

Timothy Emeka Asogwa

instrument. Reliability indices of 0.88 and 0.70 were obtained for clusters A and B respectively. Cronbach-alpha was used because the items are not dichotomously scored.

Method of Data Collection The direct delivery and retrieval method were used in administering the questionnaire to the respondents. The instrument was administered to the respondents using 18 trained research assistants (one in each of the 18 universities) were employed by the researcher for the purpose. The instrument was directly distributed and retrieved through the trained research assistants.

Method of Data Analysis Mean and t-test of independent samples were used in analyzing the collected data. While mean was used to answer the research questions, t-test of independent samples was used to test the null hypotheses at 5% probability level. The real limit of numbers were used for interpreting the data, 0.50-1.49 (Very Low Degree/Strongly Disagree: VLD/SD), 1.50-2.49 (Low Degree/Agree: LD/D), 2.50-3.49 (High Degree/Agree: HD/A), 3.50-4.00 (Very High Degree/Strongly Agree: VHD/SA).

RESULTS

The results were presented based on the research questions posed and hypotheses formulated for the study.

Research Question One: To what degree does deregulation widen the gap between the rich and the poor?

S/N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Table 1: Mean Ratings of the Respondents on the Degree to which Deregulation Widens the Gap between the Rich and the Poor Public Public Universities Questionnaire Item Universities Mean SD DEC Mean SD DEC Deregulation does not reduce Inequity in education 3.05 0.76 HD 3.13 0.57 HD The rich are more able to afford private universities.

3.60 0.60 VHD 3.61 0.71 VHD Public universities are more affordable to the poor.

3.40 0.57 HD 3.26 0.50 HD Deregulation brought about high cost of university education 3.35 0.79 HD 3.84 0.42 VHD Deregulation will make out some universities for the rich and 3.66 0.60 VHD 3.76 0.75 VHD others for the poor Deregulation will lead to over enrolment of students in public 3.65 0.59 VHD 3.88 0.40 VHD universities because of cheaper fees.

Unequal access to university education leads to social inequality 3.64 0.60 VHD 3.81 0.44 VHD Deregulation is opposed to a just and egalitarian society.

3.18 0.54 HD 3.02 0.64 HD The rich have unhindered access to university education.

3.70 0.57 VHD 3.81 0.45 VHD Deferential access to education leads to differential economic 3.20 0.54 HD 3.28 0.49 HD status Deregulation of education favours the rich more than the poor 3.61 0.63 VHD 3.86 0.40 VHD Public universities are to low income families as private 3.42 0.89 HD 3.81 0.59 VHD universities are to above average income families Deregulation fuels social injustice 3.42 0.84 HD 3.89 0.40 VHD

Cluster mean.

3.46 0.66 HD

3.61 0.52 VHD

*Key to the interpretation of the table: 0 – 1.49 = Very Low Degree (VLD)

Impact Factor (JCC) 9.6246

NAAS Rating: 3.11

Ensuring Equality of Access to University Education in a Deregulated Education System

67

1.50 – 2.49 = Low Degree (LD).2.50 – 3.49 = High Degree (HD), 3.50 – 4.00 = Very High Degree (VHD) Data from the table above indicate that items 1, 3, 8 and 10 are all rated high degree with mean scores of 3.05, 3.40, 3.18, and 3.20 by public university respondents. Their counterparts from private universities have similar mean scores: 3.13, 3.26, 3.02 and 3.18. Therefore, both respondents hold the view that deregulation does not reduce inequity in education. This is on the one part. On the contrary they also agree that while public universities are for the poor, private universities are for the rich. Added to this they aver that differential access to education leads to differential economic status.

Table 1 also showed that the following items were rated very high degree by the two groups of respondents, viz.: 2, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 11. This is evident in the mean scores of 3.60, 3. 66, 3.65, 3.64, 3.70 and 3.61 for public university respondents and 3.61, 3.76, 3.88, 3.81, 3.81 and 3.86 for private university respondents. The respondents, therefore, submit that deregulation will lead to over enrolment in public schools because of its relatively cheaper fees; that unequal access to university education leads to social inequality and that deregulation widens the gap between the rich and the poor.

Ho1: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of respondents in public and private universities on the degree to which deregulation widen the gap between the rich and the poor.

Table 2: T-Test Analysis of the Difference in the Mean Ratings of Respondents in Public and Private Universities on the Degree to which Deregulation Widen the Gap Between the Rich and the Poor University Type nX SD df t-cal Sig Decision Public University 1507 3.46 0.66 2017 -1.50 .087NS Private University 512 3.61 0.52 Table2 showed that there is no significant difference in the mean ratings of respondents in public and private universities on the degree to which deregulation widen the gap between the rich and the poor, t (2017) = -1.50, p = 0.087.

Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected since the probability value of 0.087 is greater than the 0.05 level of significance.

Research Question Two: What are the ways of improving equality of access to university education in a deregulation education system?

Table 3: Mean Ratings of Respondents on the Measures for Improving Equality of Access to University Education in a Deregulated Education System Public universities Private universities S/N Questionnaire Item Mean SD DEC Mean SD DEC Making accreditation of courses less difficult in order to 1 2.07 0.90 LD 2.38 0.70 LD increase enrolment 2 Increasing financial allocation to universities.

3.78 0.58 VHD 3.88 0.39 HD Abolishing discriminatory admission policies (like quota 3 3.55 0.71 VHD 3.89 0.41 VHD system).

4 Government should establish more universities.

2.49 1.19 LD 2.30 0.65 LD Improving facilities in public universities 5 3.74 0.72 VHD3 3.90 0.42 VHD so as to increase enrolment Providing financial incentives (scholarships and 6 3.74 0.55 VHD 3.86 0.41 VHD soft loans) to poor students.

7 Providing equal access to all, irrespective of gender.

3.70 0.55 VHD 3.90 0.33 VHD 8 Providing grant-in-aids to the private universities.

3.22 0.58 HD 3.10 0.41 HD Re-establishing distant learning centres to minimize the 9 3.08 0.94 HD 2.74 0.90 HD pressure of admission on universities.

Private sector participating actively in aiding both public 10 3.84 0.53 VHD 3.91 0.39 VHD and private universities

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

68

Timothy Emeka Asogwa

Cluster mean

3.32 0.32 HD

3.39 0.50

HD

*Key to the interpretation of the table: 0 – 1.49 = Very Low Degree (VLD) 1.50 – 2.49 = Low Degree (LD).2.50 – 3.49 = High Degree (HD), 3.50 – 4.00 = Very High Degree (VHD) Table 3 above showed that only items 14 and 17 are rated low degree with mean scores of 2.07 & 2.49 by public university respondents and 2.38 & 2.30 by private university respondents. Thus, the respondents hold the view that making accreditation of courses less difficult will only improve access to a little degree. Also, they agree that establishment of more universities would go nowhere towards addressing the problem of access.

Besides items 15, 21 and 22 are rated high degree while items 16, 18, 19, 20, and 23 are rated very high degree. In all, the respondents share the opinion that to improve equal access government should, among other things abolish discriminatory admission polices (like quota system) improve facilities in public universities so as to improve enrolment; re-establish distant learning centres to minimize pressure of admission on universities and provide financial incentives like scholarships for poor students. Added to these, the respondents also suggested that the private sector should aid both public and private universities.

Ho2: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of respondents in public and private universities on the ways of improving equality of access to university education in deregulated education system.

Table 4: T-Test Analysis of the Difference in the Mean Ratings of Respondents in Public and Private Universities on the Ways of Improving Equality of Access to University Education in Deregulated Education System University Type nX SD df t-cal Sig Decision Public University 1507 3.46 0.32 2017 -.950 . 783NS Private University 512 3.39 0.50

Table4 showed that there is no significant difference in the mean ratings of respondents in public and private universities on ways of improving equality of access to university education in deregulated education system, t (2017) = .950, p = 0.783. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected since the probability value of 0.783 is greater than the 0.05 level of significance.

DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS Analysis of research question three shows that all the items in the cluster met the criterion mean in a four-point rating scale. Consequently, both lecturers and students in public and private universities agreed that deregulation widens the gap between the rich and the poor. This is so because the respondents, among other things, agree that the rich are more able to afford private university, and that the rich have unhindered access to university education, thus university deregulation favours the rich more than the poor. These findings are quite alarming and calls for serious concern. They are alarming because they contradict the principles and provisions of the National policy on Education, which clearly provided for equal educational opportunities for all citizens at the primary, secondary and tertiary level (FRN, 2004(I)(4C). It is, therefore,

Impact Factor (JCC) 9.6246

NAAS Rating: 3.11

Ensuring Equality of Access to University Education in a Deregulated Education System

69

noted that with deregulation the poor stand a little chance, if any at all, of accessing university education. The findings, in addition, negate the provisions of section 18 of the FRN (1999) constitution as amended which oblige government to direct its directives and principles towards ensuring that there are equal and adequate educational opportunities at all levels.

Again, the current research revealed that while the rich are able to access private university, the poor cannot afford it. The latter’s choice is either public university or there is no choice at all. In fact the poor would still have to compete with the rich in the public universities. Thus, they agree that public universities are for low income earners while private universities are for the above average income families. This seems to explain why only two percent of candidates who sat for the 2015 United Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UMTE) applied to private universities (Ajiboye, 2015).

This is expected because the rich can easily afford the high fees charged in private universities unlike the poor. In line with this, Dappa, Pase and Okemini (2011) remarked that greater percentage of candidates admitted on merit into public universities in Nigeria comprises children from low income groups. While majority found in private (high tuition) universities are children from middle and high income group. This does not mean well for our nation since differential access to education will lead to differential economic status and social mobility. Given this phenomenon, the gap between the rich and poor surely widens. Against this backdrop, Schlict-schmalze, Teltemann and Windzio (2011) rightly noted that higher social classes benefit more from deregulation, and this increases the degree of educational inequality.

Truly, the higher social class benefit more because, on account of their financial wealth, their admission into universities is more assured than that of the poor. This is so because when they lose admission in the public school for want in merit demand, they easily stroll to any of the private schools of their choice and ‘buy’ any of the very expensive admission places, with far less pre-admission examination scores than the public universities. The poor is either admitted into the already over-subscribed public university with very high admission criteria or forget university education entirely.

The alternative is to resort to other intermediary tertiary institutions even when they are much more intelligent than their rich counterparts who easily pay their way into any of the private universities. In this way, too, deregulation affords the rich greater opportunity of access to university education unlike their poor counterparts.

This is worrisome because when school, nay university education, is accessed along the lines of social class at public and private universities, an unjust system that fuels poverty, inequity, segregation and increase in the gap between the rich and the poor will be enthroned. That seems to be the situation in Nigeria today and this ugly trend may have prompted Akinwumi, Isuku, and Nze (2005) to derisively describe deregulation as carrying the risk of inequity, discrimination and deepening of digital divide in the society. Based on this, the deregulation policy can be rightly seen as negating the intents and spirit of one of the national objectives in education, which aims at ‘building a just and egalitarian society’ (FRN, 2004:8). This is so because it offers educational opportunities based on financial abilities; and this unjustly favours the rich at the expense of the poor. Sequel to these findings therefore, one may conclude that deregulation fuels inequity in admission into universities in Nigeria and thereby, to a large extent, widens the gap between the rich and the poor.

Analysis of data in respect of research question five shows that the respondents in the two categories of universities agree that increase in the financial allocation to universities, abolishment of discriminating admission policies (like the quota system), improving facilities in public universities so as to increase enrolment, providing financial incentives to poor students, and re-establishing distant learning centres to minimize the pressure of admission on

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

70

Timothy Emeka Asogwa

universities, among others, will improve access to university education. These put together will provide various ways of improving equality of access to university education in Nigeria.

These findings are expected and did not come as a surprise to the researcher. There are factors accountable for such. Firstly, the finding that government should improve financial allocation to the university is expected bearing in mind that with deregulation government already withdrew or drastically reduced subventions to universities in the hope and belief that the market forces of deregulation will supply the needed funds. This hope was not met by deregulation as universities in Nigeria are not just in dire lack of funds but are poorly funded. This has led to dilapidations of structures/facilities in the universities. It has also led to the brain drain syndrome, which is the migration of some of the best professors and lecturers to higher paying countries and better working conditions. Thus, it is not surprising that the present study sees increase in the financial allocation to university as a means of increasing equal access to education. This outcome is in alliance with earlier findings by Chukwuma (2008) and Useni (2012) that university education in Nigeria is largely under-funded but will improve when funding improves.

This is true since Nigeria spends very little on funding education, so much so that in a World Bank report on the annual budgetary allocation of selected countries, Nigeria is last in a list of 20 countries among which were less endowed nations like Uganda, Kenya, Lesotho and Swaziland and the likes (Useni, 2012). It should be mentioned here that government needs to step up on funding education at all levels in order to improve equal access at all levels especially at the university level, instead of expecting the private sector to supply for the sustenance of public education through deregulation.

Furthermore, the respondents indicate that establishment of more universities can only improve equal access to a low degree. The researcher expressed surprise at the result based on reviewed literature which suggested the contrary. The finding, for instance, contradicts the view of Ehiametalor (2005) who opined that equity in admission is difficult to implement in a country where very few institutions are available to admit the number of students who are coming out of the nation’s secondary school system. However, the surprise and contradiction becomes acceptable considering the fact that the two categories of respondents overwhelmingly agree that improving the existing facilities of the existing universities would improve enrolment. By implication the respondents agree that it is better to improve the existing facilities in existing universities rather than proliferation of universities. This fact is corroborated by respondents in the interview schedule who variously advocated for very big (mega-) universities that have first grade facilities and standards instead of so many universities that are more or less ‘glorified secondary schools.

Educational Implication of the Findings The finding that deregulation widens the gap between the rich and the poor simply implies that the policy has made university education an instrument of social segregation, whereby the children of the rich continue to rise in the society sequel to the plum job opportunities attendant to university education, while the children of the poor continue to be artisans and job-men just because they cannot go beyond primary and secondary education that is more affordable. The implication is that under the deregulation milieu, university education, which should be a means to social mobility and egalitarianism, becomes a means to injustice, nepotism and enthronement of Aristocracy. This portends danger for the Nigerian society as it can fuel insurgency or rebellion, which is not far-fetched in the Nigeria polity today.

Impact Factor (JCC) 9.6246

NAAS Rating: 3.11

Ensuring Equality of Access to University Education in a Deregulated Education System

71

Finally, it is generally implied from the findings that that deregulation policy does not yield positive outcomes in all cases and in all sectors. As in the case of Nigeria, the adoption of the policy seems to have made university education worse than it met it in standard, access and sustenance. This calls for caution in the adoption of some policies that may have worked in developed nations. Such policies like deregulation (which is a pure economic policy) needs careful moderation and critical analysis before grafting such into Nigeria. Such critical analysis of a policy should be done by philosophers of education whose duty it is, among other things, to criticize, analyse and consequently prescribe best practices, with regard to the formulation and adoption of educational policies.

RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are made. 

Government should provide financial incentives to private universities and to indigent students (in form of scholarships, bursary awards and soft loans) so as to boost access into university education to children of various economic backgrounds; by so doing the poor who are able and willing can access university education.



Adequate regulatory machinery should be put in place by the government to check the excesses of private university proprietors especially in relation to the fees they charge so as to make private universities accessible to citizens other than the very rich.

REFERENCES 1.

Ajiboye, I. (2015). JAMB no longer relevant – ASUU. In Sunday Punch Newspaper. www.punchng.com p.11. Retrieved 30/07/2015.

2.

B. S. Sudharshan, “A Study on Growth of Retail Banking and its Benefits to Banks in India”, International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Research (IJECR) , Vol. 9, Issue 2, pp. 23–28

3.

Akpotu, N.E. (20050 Deregulating Nigerian university system for equity and access. In Akpa, G.C., Udoh, S.U & Fagbamiye, E.O. (eds). Deregulating the provision and management of education in Nigeria. Jos. Ginac concept.

4.

Akunwumi, F.S., Isuku, E.J., &Nze, D.I.A. (2005). University education in Nigeria: pros and cons. In Akpa, G.C., Udoh, S.U &Fagbamiye, E.O. (eds). Deregulating the provision and management of education in Nigeria. Jos. Ginac concept.

5.

Asogwa, T.E., &Asogwa, M.N.O. (2011). The Logic of market driven economy in education. Nigerian Journal of Social Sciences. 7(2), 66-77.

6.

Chukwuma, J.N (2008). The imperatives for a paradigm shift in the funding of Nigerian federal universities. In Nworgu, B.G (ed) Education reforms and the attainment of millennium development goals. MDG) the Nigerian experience. University Trust publishers.

7.

Niru Sharan, “Freedom of Speech and Expression; Indian Constitution: an Overview”, BEST: International Journal of Humanities, Arts, Medicine and Sciences (BEST: IJHAMS), Vol. 3, Issue 7, pp. 69-76

8.

Dappa, T.G., Pase, V., Okemini, I. (2011). Deregulation of education in Nigeria: implication for access to university education. In Journal of international association for teaching and learning. (online copy in www.hrmar.com . Retrieved 23/02/2013.

9.

Ehiametalor, E.T. (2005). Issues of access, equity and private sector participation in the deregulation of education. In Akpa, G.C., Udoh, S.U &Fagbamiye, E.O. (eds). Deregulating the provision and management of education in Nigeria. Jos. Ginac concept.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

72

Timothy Emeka Asogwa 10. Eze, K.O., Ugwuanyi, C.S., & Okeke, C.I.O. (2020). Extent of the Upper Basic Education French Language Curriculum Content-Delivery with Technologies in Nigerian Secondary Schools. International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD), 10(4): 311-318. https://doi.org/10.24247/ijmperdaug202027 11. Ezema, V.S., Okenyi, E.C., & Ugwuanyi, C.S. (2021). Assessment of the extent of community involvement in the funding of primary schools in Enugu state, Nigeria: Implications for further research. International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering Research and Development, 10 (1), 91-98. URL: http://www.tjprc.org/publishpapers/2-671611554947-8IJMPERDFEB20218.pdf 12. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004). National policy on education. 4 th Edition. Lagos. NERDC press.

13. Reetu Yadav , Gender Sensitive Teachers: Enabling Path to Equality “, IMPACT: International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Literature (IMPACT: IJRHAL), Vol. 8, Issue 12, pp. 69–78 14. Federal Republic of Nigeria, (1999). Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Lagos. Government press.

15. Heyble, T.S. (2005) Utilizing public vouchers and other aid to cushion the effects of deregulation among the low income groups. In Akpa, G.C., Udoh, S.U &Fagbamiye, E.O. (eds). Deregulating the provision and management of education in Nigeria. Jos. Ginac concept.

16. Jaji, M.M. (2004). Privatization and funding of education. In Okeke, E. (ed) Implication of privatization for education in Nigeria. Enugu: Snaap press.

17. Oguntuase, J.T. (2005). An evaluation of private sector participation in the provision of education in the federal capital territory Abuja. In Akpa, G.C., Udoh, S.U &Fagbamiye, E.O. (eds). Deregulating the provision and management of education in Nigeria. Jos. Ginac concept.

18. Okafor, F.C. (2005). Deregulation and Education in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Education Philosophy (NJEP) 12(1), 41-44 19. Okeke, C.I.O., Ugwuanyi, C.S & Mufutau, M.A (2020a). Stakeholders’ Views on Engaging Fathers in Early Childhood Care and Education. Journal of Human Ecology, 71(1-3): 177-186.https://doi.org/10.31901/24566608.2020/71.1-3.3233 20. Okeke, C.I.O., Okeke, C.C. & Ugwuanyi, C.S. (2020b). Intervention strategies that can support young adults’ transition into positive fatherhood: implications for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education. International Journal of Mechanical

and

Production

Engineering

Research

and

Development

(IJMPERD),

10(3):

8585–8596.

https://doi.org/10.24247/ijmperdjun2020816 21. Okenyi, E.C., Ngwoke, A.N., Ezema, V.S., Aneke, A.O., Asogwa, H.E., & Ugwuanyi, C.S. (2021). Assessment of the perceived impact of home information and communication technology on pupils’ social skills development. International Journal of Mechanical

and

Production

Engineering

Research

and

Development,

10

(1),

67-78.

URL:

http://www.tjprc.org/publishpapers/2-67-1611120431-6IJMPERDFEB20216.pdf 22. Olatunji, B. (2006). Obasanjo: No going back on education reform. This day Newspaper, November 1, p. 48.

23. Schlict-Schmalzle, R., Teltemann, J., &Windzio, M. (2011). Deregulation of Education – what does it mean for efficiency and equity. www.ECONSTOR.EU/http://hdl.handle.net/10419/52224. Retrieved on 02/06/2013.

24. Useni, M. (2012). Adequacy of budgetary allocation to educational institution in Nigeria. Pakistan Journal OF Business and Economic Review. 3(1)143-157.

25. Ajit Kumar Mishra & Upasana Mohapatra , “Is Climate Change Gender Neutral? “, International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (IJHSS), Vol. 6, Issue 5,pp. 149 - 154

Impact Factor (JCC) 9.6246

NAAS Rating: 3.11

Ensuring Equality of Access to University Education in a Deregulated Education System

73

26. Wokocha, A.M. (2005). Issues of access and equity of education to the girl-child in the deregulation of the education sector in Borno State. In Akpa, G.C., Udoh, S.U &Fagbamiye, E.O. (eds). Deregulating the provision and management of education in Nigeria. Jos. Ginac concept.

27. Ugwuanyi, C.C., Nwachukwu, W.C., Ugwuanyi, C.S., Okeke, C.I.O., Nworgu, B.G., Nwoye, M.N., Odo, I.O., Okeke, A.M., Inweregbuh, O.C., Osakwe, I.J. & Idoko, J.U. (2020). Perceived Impact of the Use of Internet Resources on Undergraduate Students’ Academic Achievement in Mathematics: Implication For Physics and Engineering Teaching. International Journal of

Mechanical

and

Production

Engineering

Research

and

Development

(IJMPERD),

10(4),

359-368.

http://dx.doi.org/10.24247/ijmperdaug202031

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org