Editorial

Education: Dangers Of Early Start

Published

4 years ago

June 9, 2021

There are worries these days about the way parents are sending their kids to school earlier than it was many years ago; for example, a situation where children of six and nine months are sent to creche and day care centres all in the name of starting them early.
Although some parents whose schedules are tight say they have no choice than to do so since getting a house help or nanny has a lot of implications for the child and the family. But aside that, some people feel that the benefit of sending their children to school so early will help them secure job early. And the issue of starting life early.
So many years ago, children of school age were not allowed to start school until their hands could cross from one part of their ear to another. That was the yardstick used to ascertain whether one could start school or not.
It is important that our wards acquire education early but their lives should not be put to danger because we want them to finish school early. The truth is that parents are pushing their children into school these days as if there is competition among families and friends. This is not healthy enough for our young ones.
I don’t understand why a child of 12 years should be in Senior Secondary Two (SS2). It means that the child will be a graduate at age 13 or 14 in SS3. This should be discouraged by government and private school operators.
Which university will admit a student of 14 or 15 years when universities insist that they must be 16-years old before being admitted? I’ve seen a child who performed well both in SSCE and UTME but was denied admission by one of our universities because he was below 16 years.
That is a welcome development. Maturity is one of the factors in the teaching and learning process. We should not send our children to school earlier than it should be. No matter how intelligent a child is, he should not be allowed to jump any class. School managers should resist parents who may want their children to jump from one class to another.
Even if a child scores Excellent in all subjects in a particular class, that child should be allowed to touch all the classes, complete primary 6 of lower basic. That will make a significant impact on that child. Years back, many of us started secondary school at the age of 12 and 13 and never lost anything, as we finished at 17, 18 and 19 before seeking admission into the university.
Back in secondary school, some students were already 20 years and never bothered being in the same class with younger persons. There are children who are exceptionally good but that does not mean a child should be sent to school prematurely. That child may suffer inferiority complex in the midst of seniors.
Children should be allowed to move with their peers. This will give them a sense of belonging among peers. When a child begins to nurse the problem of inferiority complex, he will certainly experience withdrawal syndrome. Peer group pressure becomes a problem on the child.
Those are some of the challenges resulting from keeping younger persons among the older ones. We are not in danger so we should not put our children into such uncomfortable scenario. Nowadays, children are getting into school at tender age as parents dictate. There are things children are supposed to learn as kids at a particular level and when they jump such level and get to a point where parents want them to be, one day, those children will definitely feel it and the significance of the level will manifest.
Children should be allowed to enjoy whatever thing they are meant to enjoy at every level. No level of a child’s development should be ignored. Every stage of development is important, no matter how intelligent that child may be. Stakeholders know why every curriculum is prepared in a way to suit every child. So, parents should allow children to enjoy every stage in their lives.
A teacher once told me that children below 10 years who find themselves in secondary school do not concentrate in class. They find it difficult to concentrate, no matter what the teacher does.
Parents deny their kids parental care. Sometimes in schools, parents abandon their wards at the mercy of minders after school hours, up to 6:00pm. Whereas they should have gone home earlier to prepare for the next day. Even at home, they are left in the hands of house helps and nannies while parents are busy looking for money. Children are denied parental care and are not getting full maturity because of these factors.
Another reason for this rush by parents is pride. A parent may be boasting that his child is either in ABC school and representing the whole world while another person’s child is at home or one “inferior” school.
Children who are pushed into school prematurely do not sustain it most times. Students of 15 and 16 years old going into university can suffer depression according to research. Researches have also shown that they (younger ones) risk the problem of mental health more than their older classmates.
In the case of creche and day care centres, the idea is not really to acquire education; yet, parents decide to keep their babies so that they can go about their daily businesses. It is true they need money to cater for their households.
Teaching and learning process begins with the parents. No matter how tight our schedules may be, we must take care of our kids. Parents must devote time to nurture and teach their children many things that they cannot be done in classroom. We should not rush them through life all in a bid to acquire education early.
It is worrisome that parents rush their children to school while they cannot speak and understand their languages and dialects. One of the guidelines in the National Policy in Education is that children should be taught in their mother tongue at home while they learn foreign language in school.
The Policy also stipulates that every child at the basic level should be taught the language of the place of residence. I’m not sure school managers are obeying this instruction and parents do not do a follow-up.
Parents rush their children to school while they do not understand their environment, culture and tradition of theirs and others. Although few schools devote little time to mark cultural day for the kids. It is good that people start school early and graduate at 20, 21 and maybe get a job at 23 and 24 as some employers will indicate.
There was a period when students secured admission between the ages of 22 and 23 years as a result of either delay in obtaining credits in their choice of disciplines and high scores in UTME. They still graduate at 27 and 28 before proceeding for national youth service.

By: Eunice Choko-Kayode

Editorial

Charge Before New Rivers Council Helmsmen

Published

11 hours ago

September 29, 2025

The Tide

On the 30th of August, Rivers people trooped out to participate in local government elections conducted across the state. These elections, which produced new chairmen and councillors for the 23 local government areas (LGAs), were organised by the Rivers State Independent Electoral Commission (RSIEC). The exercise has ushered in a new crop of grassroots leaders whose shoulders now bear the responsibility of steering the affairs of their respective councils. With the polls concluded and winners duly announced, the time has come for the newly elected officials to roll up their sleeves and begin the hard work of governance.

According to the results declared by RSIEC, the All Progressives Congress (APC) secured a dominant lead, winning chairmanship seats in 20 of the 23 local government councils, while the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) clinched the remaining three. This outcome not only reflects the current political dynamics in the state but also places a significant weight of expectation on the shoulders of the APC-led councils to justify the confidence reposed in them by the electorate. It is imperative that political rhetoric now gives way to tangible development, especially at the grassroots level where government is felt most directly.

Following the elections, the successful chairmen were officially sworn into office by the former Sole Administrator of Rivers State, Vice Admiral (rtd) Ibok-Ete Ekwe Ibas. The solemn ceremony marked a transition from campaign promises to the reality of public service. With their inauguration complete, the time for celebration has ended; the time for delivery has commenced. The electorate now awaits meaningful action that reflects the hopes and aspirations of the voting public.

As helmsmen of their various LGAs, these leaders must quickly settle down to work. Their constituents expect them to provide direction, formulate policies, and execute programmes that will uplift communities long neglected. The local government tier is closest to the people and, as such, must rise above politicking to meet the everyday needs of the citizenry. It is not enough to occupy office; they must make their impact visibly and positively felt across their domains.

The Supreme Court ruling mandating direct allocation of funds to local governments—although not yet fully implemented—is a welcome development that underscores the autonomy of the third tier of government. Once this is operationalised, the excuses often cited for underperformance will no longer hold water. With funds directly accessed from the Federation Account, council administrations will be better empowered to meet the developmental needs of their localities, if only they manage resources judiciously and prioritise the right projects.

The onus is now on the chairmen to contribute meaningfully to the broader development of Rivers State. The state government cannot and should not be expected to do everything. Local government councils have defined responsibilities—ranging from rural infrastructure, primary healthcare, and basic education to waste management and local security—that must be adequately addressed. It is high time they stopped passing the buck and started acting as the elected leaders they are.

We extend our congratulations to all who emerged victorious in the elections. However, with this victory comes great responsibility. It is no longer about party affiliations or electoral campaigns; it is about governance. The chairmen must launch people-centred projects that will genuinely improve the lives of the rural populace—projects in water supply, road maintenance, school renovation, and youth empowerment, among others. Let their tenure be remembered for its impact, not its slogans.

Central to their mandate should be the welfare of workers. Council employees form the engine room of local governance, and their morale significantly affects service delivery. The new chairmen must ensure regular payment of salaries, staff training, and a conducive working environment. Neglecting this vital aspect will only hinder whatever grand plans they may have for their LGAs.

It is also essential to institute a robust peer review mechanism. The new LG officials should not operate in isolation; rather, they should learn from one another, share ideas, and compete constructively in a bid to outperform each other in service delivery. Healthy competition among council areas will drive innovation and foster accelerated development. Such a system will also help the public identify high-performing councils for emulation.

Given the typically short tenure of council administrations, it is crucial that they focus on projects that are realistic and impactful. Time and resources should not be wasted on white elephant ventures that are neither sustainable nor beneficial to the people. Instead, chairmen should pursue programmes that match their timelines and address immediate community needs.

Peace and security must remain a cardinal objective for all council steersmen. Regardless of who facilitated their election or what political loyalties they hold, they must ensure peace reigns in their areas. Development cannot thrive in an atmosphere of tension and distrust. These leaders must work closely with traditional rulers, youth groups, and civil society organisations to maintain law and order.

A critical understanding must also prevail—that chairmen are leaders of the people, not just leaders of political parties. They must conduct themselves as impartial administrators serving all constituents, irrespective of political affiliations. Additionally, they must work harmoniously with the state governor, who remains the leader of the state. Petty rivalries and political infighting serve no purpose in the development agenda.

Now that the elections are over and governance has begun, it is essential for these chairmen and councillors to adopt an inclusive approach. They must carry everyone along—party members and opposition alike—in their development plans. Creating division or playing favourites will only fracture communities and stall progress. Leadership at the grassroots demands fairness, equity, and a listening ear.

Rivers people have played their part by coming out to vote. The baton has now been passed to the new council helmsmen. They must seize the opportunity to leave lasting legacies in their communities. History will not judge them by the number of rallies they held or the speeches they gave, but by the quality of life they brought to their people. Let them not squander this moment.

Editorial

No To Political Office Holders’ Salary Hike

Published

7 days ago

September 22, 2025

The Tide

Nigeria’s Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) has unveiled a gratuitous proposal to increase the salaries of political and public office holders in the country. This plan seeks to fatten the pay packets of the president, vice-president, governors, deputy governors, and members of the National and State Assemblies. At a time when the nation is struggling to steady its economy, the suggestion that political leaders should be rewarded with more money is not only misplaced but insulting to the sensibilities of the ordinary Nigerian.

What makes the proposal even more opprobrious is the dire economic condition under which citizens currently live. The cost of living crisis has worsened, inflation has eroded the purchasing power of workers, and the naira continues to tumble against foreign currencies. The majority of Nigerians are living hand to mouth, with many unable to afford basic foodstuffs, medical care, and education. Against this backdrop, political office holders, who already enjoy obscene allowances, perks, and privileges, should not even contemplate a salary increase.

It is, therefore, not surprising that the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has stepped in to challenge this development. SERAP has filed a lawsuit against the RMAFC to halt the implementation of this salary increment. This resolute move represents a voice of reason and accountability at a time when public anger against political insensitivity is palpable. The group is rightly insisting that the law must serve as a bulwark against impunity.

According to a statement issued by SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the commission has been dragged before the Federal High Court in Abuja. Although a hearing date remains unconfirmed, the momentous step of seeking judicial redress reflects a determination to hold those in power accountable. SERAP has once again positioned itself as a guardian of public interest by challenging an elite-centric policy.

The case, registered as suit number FHC/ABJ/CS/1834/2025, specifically asks the court to determine “whether RMAFC’s proposed salary hike for the president, vice-president, governors and their deputies, and lawmakers in Nigeria is not unlawful, unconstitutional and inconsistent with the rule of law.” This formidable question goes to the very heart of democratic governance: can those entrusted with public resources decide their own pay rises without violating the constitution and moral order?

In its pleadings, SERAP argues that the proposed hike runs foul of both the 1999 Nigerian Constitution and the RMAFC Act. By seeking a judicial declaration that such a move is unlawful, unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the rule of law, the group has placed a spotlight on the tension between self-serving leadership and constitutionalism. To trivialise such an issue would be harum-scarum, for the constitution remains the supreme authority guiding governance.

We wholeheartedly commend SERAP for standing firm, while we roundly condemn RMAFC’s selfish proposal. Political office should never be an avenue for financial aggrandisement. Since our leaders often pontificate sacrifice to citizens, urging them to tighten their belts in the face of economic turbulence, the same leaders must embody sacrifice themselves. Anything short of this amounts to double standards and betrayal of trust.

The Nigerian economy is not buoyant enough to shoulder the additional cost of a salary increase for political leaders. Already, lawmakers and executives enjoy allowances that are grossly disproportionate to the national average income. These earnings are sufficient not only for their needs but also their unchecked greed. To even consider further increments under present circumstances is egregious, a slap in the face of ordinary workers whose minimum wage remains grossly insufficient.

Resources earmarked for such frivolities should instead be channelled towards alleviating the suffering of citizens and improving the nation’s productive capacity. According to United Nations statistics, about 62.9 per cent of Nigerians were living in multidimensional poverty in 2021, compared to 53.7 per cent in 2017. Similarly, nearly 30.9 per cent of the population lives below the international poverty line of US$2.15 per day. These figures paint a stark picture: Nigeria is a poor country by all measurable standards, and any extra naira diverted to elite pockets deepens this misery.

Besides, the timing of this proposal could not be more inappropriate. At a period when unemployment is soaring, inflation is crippling households, and insecurity continues to devastate communities, the RMAFC has chosen to pursue elite enrichment. It is widely known that Nigeria’s economy is in a parlous state, and public resources should be conserved and wisely invested. Political leaders must show prudence, not profligacy.

Another critical dimension is the national debt profile. According to the Debt Management Office, Nigeria’s total public debt as of March 2025 stood at a staggering N149.39 trillion. External debt obligations also remain heavy, with about US$43 billion outstanding by September 2024. In such a climate of debt-servicing and borrowing to fund budgets, it is irresponsible for political leaders to even table the idea of inflating their salaries further. Debt repayment, not self-reward, should occupy their minds.

This ignoble proposal is insensitive, unnecessary, and profoundly reckless. It should be discarded without further delay. Public office is a trust, not an entitlement to wealth accumulation. Nigerians deserve leaders who will share in their suffering, lead by example, and prioritise the common good over self-indulgence. Anything less represents betrayal of the social contract and undermines the fragile democracy we are striving to build.