The passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1950 spurred efforts around the world to ensure that “everyone has a right to education.” More than 50 years later, as states still struggle to achieve universal education, Nigeria’s Universal Basic Education Act (UBE) and the US No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) have garnered the greatest international attention for their professed abilities to finally realize this goal. However, the controversy surrounding both suggests that these programs may not be all that they appear.

Nigeria’s gross domestic product (GDP) ranks 211th out of the 229 countries in the world at US$875 per capita, while the United States has the second highest GDP with US$36,300 per capita. Yet while 60 percent of the Nigerian population is below the US poverty line and almost half of all US citizens own a car, Nigeria’s universal education plan seems to be meeting with more success.

The United States has been working with a universal education base for some time longer than Nigeria, which only began its implementation through the Universal Primary Education program in the mid-1970s. Accordingly, the disparity in the criticism of the two programs may be somewhat justified. Critics of NCLB, such as the National School Board Association (NSBA), have mainly focused on the fl awed accountability requirements that may lead to more children being “left behind” by the educational system than before. The main criticism of the UBE is proverbial in education policy: lack of funding.

According to the Chairman of Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission, Dr. Abel Guobadia, “no curriculum change, no infrastructural innovation, no restructuring of the educational system … will succeed in arresting the falling standards of education, if the institutions continue to lack the sufficient funds for the effective operation.” In 2002, the first year for both programs, UBE spent the approximate equivalent of US$112 million, while NCLB allotted US$13.5 billion. While Nigeria spends far less on its education program, UBE funding can annually be no less than two percent of the Nigerian consolidated revenue fund (which the National Assembly originally proposed as 10 percent before it was vetoed by President Olusegun Obasanjo), while NCLB last year comprised less than one percent of the annual budget and has no required budgetary allocation.

Since both programs are fairly young, statistics are not yet available on the success of either. However, some information can be gathered from their infrastructure. The National Coordinator of UBE, Professor Gidado Tahir, explains that UBE is “aimed at providing basic education to all Nigerian children of school age in spite of whatever circumstances they may find themselves in.” Under UBE, education was universally available and children in Quranic schools were also included. NCLB belies its name by not having the same provision for children in religious schools.

Furthermore, the funding structures for the two bills are completely different. NCLB awards additional funding to schools that are demonstrating improvement or success, while the UBE requires that “educationally disadvantaged states” (24 out of 36 are designated as such) receive 20 percent more funding. Thereafter, grants are disbursed half based on the equality of states and half on population.

Not surprisingly, the funding provisions have stirred the most controversy in both nations. Nigerian education expert Dr. Mobalaji E. Aluko notes that this policy indicates that “73 percent of whole UBE funds will be spent on the 25 disadvantaged states instead of 69.4 percent if it had been spent uniformly on all states." He continues, "This does not translate into really a significant boost or resource deficit for any one state, and we are spreading the increased resources too thinly.” In contrast to Nigeria, the US NSBA president Mossi White argues that the funding focus on NCLB only pulls the carpet out from beneath struggling schools.

Other factors also differ in UBE and NCLB. Compulsory education within UBE ranges from age seven to 17, while NCLB only requires schooling to age 16. Unlike NCLB, UBE also punishes noncompliance by parents with jail time and provides free lunch to all Nigerian children. NCLB has stricter national standards than UBE and allows limited discretion to local governments in the use of funds. This pressures municipal districts to manage education as policymakers see fi t, rather than addressing specific problems with individual solutions. UBE, by contrast, gives local districts greater control over the delegation of funds while simultaneously administering national standards.

While the most media attention to Nigeria comes from stories of its instability, its attempts to provide universal education structurally challenge that of the United States. Although only time will tell how well either country achieves its educational dreams, Nigeria appears to be on a sounder path to achieving the goal of universal education.