The Ministry of Education’s Policy Somersaults: How Reversals and Mixed Signals Are Hurting Nigeria’s Children

Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Education (FME) has spent the past two years announcing big-ticket reforms and then walking back, narrowing, delaying, or clarifying them, often within days. The pattern is now obvious: headline policy to public excitement or alarm to rapid clarification or reversal. The net effect is confusion for students, parents, schools and state education authorities.

The Ministry of Education’s Catalogue of Confusion: Major Policy Somersaults

1. The “12-4” basic-education proposal (February 2025): The ministry floated a shift to a 12-year uninterrupted basic education model (effectively integrating junior and senior secondary into a continuous basic cycle, followed by four years tertiary). The proposal generated debate and uneven uptake.  some states signalled interest while others treated it as discussion-only. The announcement looked like a dramatic national reform but was presented before broad stakeholder buy-in or an implementation plan was finalised.
2. New basic-school curriculum announced, then postponed / delayed (late 2024 – 2025): A skill-oriented, trimmed curriculum for basic schools was announced for rollout in January 2025 (with trade subjects and a reduced subject load). The ministry later shifted the rollout date to later in 2025, generating uncertainty for schools planning for the academic year.
3. Minimum age for tertiary admission “18 years” introduced, then reversed (Nov 2024): A directive that set 18 years as a minimum age for admission into degree programmes (issued by the previous minister) was reversed by the incoming minister, Tunji Alausa, within days of taking office, producing confusion for institutions that had begun aligning admission rules.
4. Removal of Mathematics as a compulsory credit for Arts & Humanities admissions (Oct 2025): In mid-October 2025 the FME revised admission guidelines to remove the credit-in-Mathematics requirement for Arts/Humanities undergraduate admissions, a move the ministry defended as widening access. The announcement prompted swift debate and alarm among educators; within days the ministry issued clarifications emphasising that Mathematics remains part of O-Level requirements and that the move targeted admission criteria, not complete removal of maths from the curriculum. The speed and tone of the follow-up left many stakeholders unsure what to do.
5. Mixed messaging on admissions rules, curriculum content and start dates (ongoing): Several other announcements, including revisions to school calendars, subject lists and admission thresholds have been followed quickly by clarifications or postponements. The cumulative result is a persistent state of policy whiplash for stakeholders.
6. Cancellation of the National Language Policy (November 2025):The Federal Government has scrapped the 2022 National Language Policy, which required schools to teach pupils from Early Childhood Education to Primary Six in their mother tongue or the language of the local community. Announced by the Minister of Education, Dr. Tunji Alausa, at the 2025 Language in Education International Conference and approved at the 69th National Council on Education meeting, the reversal reinstates English as the sole medium of instruction at all levels. The minister attributed the decision to data showing poor WAEC, NECO, and JAMB performance in regions that heavily adopted mother-tongue instruction, stating that the approach had “destroyed education in certain regions” over the past 15 years.
7. Closure of 41 Federal Unity Colleges Due to Security Threats (November 2025): The ministry ordered the immediate shutdown of 41 Federal Unity Colleges across the North-West, North-East, North-Central, and parts of the South following heightened security alerts. While authorities describe the action as preventive, it highlights a deeper problem: another quick fix in response to crisis. Instead of a comprehensive national school safety plan; risk assessments, fortified infrastructure, trained security personnel, community-based intelligence, the response cuts children off from education entirely. This pattern of reactive policymaking shows again how the ministry leans on emergency shutdowns rather than sustained investment in safe-school systems.

What these somersaults cost children, parents and the education system

1. Confused planning: Schools and parents must plan months ahead (exams, subject choices, teacher deployment, infrastructure). Unclear or shifting policy forces last-minute changes, wasted procurement, and repeated re-training, money many schools may not have.
2. Teacher morale and professional practice suffer: Teachers are asked to master new curricula or priorities, only to receive revised instructions soon after. Frequent, unpacked change results in superficial compliance rather than deep pedagogical reform. Quality declines when teachers are in perpetual catch-up mode.
3. Students lose learning time and certainty: Students make subject choices (SSCE/NECO, UTME preparation) based on admission rules and curriculum expectations. When those rules move, students either waste effort on less-relevant subjects or are blindsided at admission. The uncertainty especially harms late-stage secondary students preparing for national exams.
4. Equity and opportunity distortions: Policy switch-backs (e.g., math requirement relaxation) can unintentionally advantage or disadvantage particular cohorts: those with access to guidance can pivot quickly; poorer students cannot. Repeated reversals widen rather than close existing gaps.
5. Diminished public trust and stakeholder cooperation: Rapid reversals signal poor governance and weaken cooperation from state governments, teacher unions, parents’ associations and donors. Where trust erodes, implementation support dries up.

Why is the Federal Ministry of Education doing this?

1. Top-down, rushed announcements without pilot or phased implementation: Several major reforms were announced as national packages before pilot testing or phased rollouts were designed, creating a disconnect between political timelines and operational readiness.
2. Weak stakeholder consultation and poor inter-government coordination: Education in Nigeria requires federal-state coordination. Policies floated without state education commissioners, exam bodies (WAEC/NECO/NABTEB), and tertiary admissions bodies are bound to create friction.
3. Communication failures and reactive clarifications: The ministry often issues major statements without clear implementation guidance (who, when, how) and follows up with ad hoc clarifications after public reaction, the classic “announce first, explain later” pattern.
4. Leadership transitions and policy resets: Ministerial changes (and shifts in senior leadership) mean that new policy priorities can sweep away predecessors’ initiatives, producing reversals (e.g., the 18-year admissions policy reversal after a ministerial change).

What the ministry must do now

If the Federal Ministry of Education genuinely intends to move from confusion to competence, it should commit to the following immediate steps:

1. Publish a 3-year public implementation calendar for each major reform (curriculum, admission rules, 12-4 transition) with clear milestones, responsible agencies, and funding lines.
2. Mandate stakeholder clearance: state commissioners, exam bodies, teacher unions, parents’ representatives) before public announcements of major reforms.
3. Clarify communications protocol must be accompanied by implementation memos, FAQs for schools, and timelines to reduce knee-jerk confusion.
4. Commit seed funding and training before the roll out of new curricula or vocational trades teachers must be trained and materials supplied before the start date.
5. Set up a public dashboard that shows the status of policy rollouts (gazettement, pilot reports, teacher training completion rates, curriculum distribution).

Conclusion: Ministry of Education or Ministry of Confusion?

The ministry is not incompetent in motive, many officials appear committed to reform but the pattern of rushed announcements, inadequate piloting, weak consultation and reactive clarifications has produced real harm for learners. Policy leadership in education must be deliberate, incremental and clearly articulated, education is a long-term, high-trust investment that cannot be run on headline announcements alone.

Nigeria’s children deserve a ministry that plans carefully, consults widely, and implements patiently. Anything less is policy theatre; the cost is borne by the nation’s future.

Source of Image: Getty Images