By Abdussalam Amoo
The decision by the Oyo State Government to introduce free evening classes for out-of-school children was, on paper, a progressive intervention. This effort intended to meet children within their lived realities in markets and informal workspaces commenced on 27th April, 2026. It reflected a shift from relying solely on enforcement of compulsory education laws to adopting a more flexible and inclusive approach. Oyo State hosts the highest number of out-of-school children in southern Nigeria. The idea recognises the reality that many out-of-school children are excluded from formal education not by choice, but by economic necessity.
However, the zero turnout recorded on the first day of the programme reveals a deeper issue. Definitely, the intention didn’t fail but the initiative failed to align between policy design and social reality.
The initiative, driven by the administration of Governor Seyi Makinde and implemented through the Ministry of Education under Commissioner Olusegun Olayiwola, was designed to provide learning opportunities during evening hours for children engaged in daytime economic activities. The logic is that if children cannot attend school during conventional hours, education should be brought to them at more convenient times. Variants of this model exist in parts of northern Nigeria, where children combine vocational or religious learning with formal schooling.
Yet, policy success is rarely determined by logic alone. It depends on how well that logic fits into the complex socio-economic structures it seeks to influence.
The fundamental flaw in the programme lies in its assumption that availability automatically translates to accessibility. Children working in markets are not simply idle participants waiting for educational opportunities. They are embedded in family survival systems where their time contributes directly or indirectly to household income. Scheduling classes between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m, which is a peak period for commercial activity effectively positioned education in competition with livelihood. In that context, attending classes carries an economic cost. For many families, that cost is too high.
Equally significant is the programme’s communication strategy. While the use of town criers and state radio reflects traditional and culturally relevant methods of information dissemination, it remains largely a top-down, broadcast approach. Such methods may raise awareness, but they do not necessarily generate trust or commitment. In informal economies, decisions about children’s time and participation are shaped by close-knit networks such as parents, guardians, market leaders, and trade associations. Without meaningful engagement with these actors, policy messages rarely translate into behavioural change.
Another critical gap lies in the absence of incentives. The programme offers free education, but it does not offset the opportunity cost of participation. For children who contribute economically, even minimally, attending a two-hour class represents a tangible loss. Successful interventions in similar contexts often combine access with incentives. These may include meals, stipends, or material support to rebalance the cost-benefit equation for families. By contrast, the Oyo initiative assumes that the intrinsic value of education is sufficient motivation, an assumption that does not hold in conditions of economic strain.
There are several ways the programme could have been better designed. First, a preliminary, ground-level assessment of market dynamics and family livelihoods would have provided critical insights into appropriate timing and delivery models. Second, a more flexible scheduling system that aligned with the rhythms of market activity could have improved participation. Third, incorporating even modest incentives would have acknowledged the economic realities faced by target beneficiaries. Fourth, embedding the programme within community structures, particularly through partnerships with market associations and local leaders, would have enhanced legitimacy and trust. Finally, conducting a small-scale pilot before a public rollout could have helped identify and correct design flaws without the reputational cost of a widely reported failure.
Despite the disappointing turnout, it would be reductive to dismiss the initiative outright. The outcome of the first day should be seen not as a definitive failure, but as valuable feedback. It highlights the gap between policy conception and implementation, and underscores the importance of designing interventions that are not only well-intentioned but also context-sensitive.
From the forgoing, the challenge is not simply to make education available, but to make participation feasible. In environments where children’s time is economically structured, access must be negotiated. The success of future interventions will depend on the government’s ability to move beyond provision and towards a deeper understanding of the lived realities it seeks to change.