The recent policy announced by the Minister of Education, Prof. Tahir Mamman setting an age limit of 18 years for candidates writing O-Level examinations including West African Examination Council (WAEC) and National Examination Council (NECO) and subsequently seeking admission into tertiary institutions, has sparked significant debate across the country. This policy introduces a new layer of regulation in the education system, which already grapples with numerous challenges. This calls for a critical examination of the arguments for and against the policy and recommendations, considering the controversies that have arisen.
Proponents of the age limit argue that requiring students to be at least 18 years before taking O-Level exams ensures that they are more mature and better prepared for the rigours of tertiary education. The transition from secondary to tertiary education is significant, demanding a higher level of intellectual, emotional, and social maturity. Younger students, especially those below 18 years, may struggle with the pressures and expectations of higher education, potentially leading to high dropout rates or academic underperformance.
Another argument favouring the policy is that it could help standardise educational pathways across the country. Currently, there is a wide disparity in the ages at which students complete secondary education, primarily due to differences in school enrolment ages, promotion policies, and the quality of education across various regions. An age limit could ensure a more uniform progression through the education system, reducing cases of very young students entering tertiary institutions.
The policy might also contribute to reducing examination malpractices. Younger students, under pressure from parents or guardians to achieve high scores, might be more susceptible to engaging in unethical practices. Setting an age limit could potentially reduce this pressure, as students would have more time to prepare adequately for the exams.
Whereas these arguments are valid, however, those against it also have strong viewpoints. One of the main criticisms of the policy is that it discriminates against early starters—those students who, due to their intellectual abilities or early enrolment, are ready to take O Level exams before the age of 18. This policy would unfairly penalised these students, forcing them to wait for years before they are eligible to take the exams, which could demotivate them and disrupt their academic momentum.
A significant argument is that in a country where 78% of girls in the northern region marry below the age of 18 years, limiting the age for tertiary institution admission is nothing but a misplaced priority. They are of the view that this kind of energy and policy thrust should be channelled towards addressing child marriage rather than discouraging early education.
Another concern is that the policy might lead to an increase in school dropouts. In regions where children typically start school early, this policy could create a gap year situation, where students complete secondary school but have to wait before they are eligible to take their O-Level exams. This waiting period could lead to disengagement from academic activities and, in some cases, result in students dropping out of the education system entirely.
Critics also argue that the policy could exacerbate educational inequality in Nigeria. In many parts of the country, particularly in rural areas, students often start school late due to various socio-economic factors. This policy might disadvantage these students further, as they could find themselves significantly older than their peers in the same class, potentially leading to social stigma and affecting their academic performance.
Furthermore, some believe that chronological age doesn’t signify maturity. Some people are mentally mature before 18 while there are lots above 18 years that are not ready for adulthood. Maturity is more of the function of upbringing and values imbibed by a child. Setting an age limit does not entirely address the issue of maturity before admission and peer pressure influence as opined by the proponents of the policy. Hence, the argument about maturity is lame.
Considering these arguments, there is a need for a balanced policy approach. One potential way to address the concerns raised by the policy is to implement it flexibly. For instance, rather than imposing a strict age limit, the government could allow exceptions for particularly gifted students who are ready to take O-Level exams before the age of 18. This could be done through a rigorous assessment process to ensure that only those who are genuinely prepared are allowed to take the exams early.
To avoid discriminating against early starters, the government could introduce special programmes or curricula designed to keep these students engaged while they wait to become eligible for O-Level exams. For example, advanced preparatory courses, vocational training, or early introduction to tertiary-level coursework could be offered to these students. This would ensure that their academic progress is not unduly disrupted.
The government should also focus on addressing the regional disparities in school enrolment and completion rates. This could involve targeted interventions in areas where children typically start school late, such as increasing access to early childhood education, improving the quality of primary and secondary education, and providing incentives for timely school enrolment. Levelling the playing field can help the policy’s potential negative impact on these regions could be mitigated.
It is crucial for the government to regularly review the policy’s impact and remain open to making adjustments based on feedback from stakeholders, including students, parents, educators, and education experts. Establishing a platform for continuous dialogue with these stakeholders would help ensure that the policy remains relevant and effective.
The policy of setting an age limit of 18 years for writing O-Level examinations is a well-intentioned attempt to address some of the challenges in the country’s education system. However, like any policy, it has its strengths and weaknesses. While it could potentially enhance the maturity and readiness of students entering tertiary education and reduce examination malpractices, it also risks discriminating against early starters, increasing dropout rates, and widening educational inequality.
To maximise the benefits of this policy while minimising its downsides, a flexible approach to its implementation is essential. Additionally, the government must address the underlying issues that lead to regional disparities in education and remain responsive to the concerns of all stakeholders. Through careful consideration and ongoing dialogue, this policy could contribute positively to the development of Nigeria’s education system, while ensuring that no student is left behind.
Mudiaga Aluya
Mudiaga is a Public Policy Analyst and an alumnus of Cheetah Policy Institute Leadership Bootcamp.