AN EVALUATION OF THE SECONDARY
SCHOOLS HEALTH EDUCATION CURRICULUM
IN KWARA STATE, NIGERIA.
Dr. O. O. Oyerinde & Odeniyi O. O.
The paper investigated secondary schools health
education curriculum in Kwara State, Nigeria.
The importance and responsibilities of health
education towards the health needs and
promotion for school children was dully noted. A
descriptive research design of the survey type
was adopted. A multistage sampling technique
was used to select 390 subjects comprised of
students, principals and teachers. A previously
validated questionnaire was administered on the
subjects to collect data.
Results showed that subjects differ in their
evaluation of the status of health education in
schools and the personnel for the teaching of
Health Education. They were however not
different in their evaluation of facilities and
equipment for Health Education. Based on the
findings, it was recommended that advocacy must
be conduct for principals and
professionalisation of the health education
profession should be advocated.
Health Education, like many other fields of study
has been defined by many authors. This is not surprising
when it is realized that all areas of life have
implications for health depending on the perspective or
area of interest of the person giving the definition.
Therefore the meaning is tailored in line with his
reasoning. The social worker will define health
differently from the medical worker for examples. Again
in relation to the family, it carries the implication for family
Health. Also at work, on the roads and at recreation
grounds, there is the implication for safely education
while growth of human beings also carries with it 'sex
education' or "human sexuality" (Oyerinde 1992).
In the midst of the various meanings and
definitions of health education, those of Clark & Cundey
(197 7), Last (1987), Layout (1981), Davies (1989),
Mondo (1998), and Wellness (2009) that health education
is a process of providing teaching and learning
experiences and activities for the purpose of influencing
the knowledge, attitude, practices and conduct with regards
to family, individual, and community health by means of
educational process is all inspiring and agree in content
and context with other authors. Generally and
according to Moronkola (1997), Alison, Angus, Roz,
& Beth (2005) & American Academy of child
adolescent psychology (2008), health education is abridge
between the existing scientific know-how and how the
knowledge can be properly and effectively utilized for
man's healthful living.
The primary responsibility of health education for
health of the child rests on the parents, but the school is in
a strategic position to contribute effectively to the health
of every school-
age, child
(Oyerinde
1992,
Fukumi,
Narutriko
& Atsuko
2002 and
Odeniyi
2003).
According
to WHO
(1996),
the school
can fortify
and
supplemen
t
the
parents
efforts
since there
is
no
single
method
whereby
the health
message
can reach
all
and
sundry,
the school
has been
seen by
the World
Health
Organizati
on
(WHO)
(1971) &
(2000) as
the nearest
medium
through
which it can achieve children health education in all homes,
villages and communities.
There is no gainsaying the fact that health Education is
an important subject which should be taught in schools.
According to Green. Jones: & Manderscheid (1996), Lawrence
(2006) & Euteach (2008) the standards of the WHO that schools
should ensure school health policy, good physical environment,
good social environment, development of personal health skills,
community relationship and health services. It is the presence
of these that will ensure that the school is providing a safe, secure
and stimulating school environment which encourage pupils to
be health and safety conscious both in and out of school (Odeniyi
2003). It is because of the varied implications and needs for
health that Oyerinde (1991) recounted the Cohen report (1964)
that health education should:
1.
Advice about specific measures for health promotion
2.
Advice about habits and attitudes which will promote
health
3.
Educate to enable people o understand the need for and
support measures for health promotion; and
4.
Educate about seeking early medical advice for certain
conditions.
In his own contribution to health education and promotion
Moroni-cola (2002) feels that health Education and promotion
must:
(a)
Create supportive environment for each segment of the
World to care for individuals, self and environment.
(b)
Strengthen community action through empowerment to
make decisions, plans and implement all programmes
that have direct bearing on the coimnunity's health
(c)
Develop personal skill through provision of information,
education for health, and skills in the home, school work
and community settings,
(d)
Re-orientate health services to ensure that health services
is a joint responsibility of individuals, community, groups,
health professionals, institutions and government.
Whether the above is present in the school health
education programes is yet to be established as diseases are still
with us, drugjaddiction is with us, sexually transmitted diseases
including HIV/AIDS are steadily and rapidly taking their toll
and environmental degradation is going on unabated.
The present study therefore was muted to evaluate the
status of secondary schools health education and counseling as
a beginning point, in Kwara State, Nigeria. The following
questions were answered by the study.
Is there a health education programme in the secondary
schools of Kwara State, Nigeria.
Is health education adequately provided for in terms o
facilities and equipment, books, personnel and teaching
materials.
To resolve these questions, three hypotheses were
generated that:
There is no significant difference in the evaluation of
respondents of school health education programme in Kwara
State secondary schools.
There is no significant difference in the evaluation of respondents of the facilities
and equipment of health education in Kwara State, Nigeria.
There is no significant difference in the evaluation of respondents of the provision
of personnel for health education in Kwara State secondary school.
The study was significant in that suggestions on how to improve health education
programmes was offered. Also suggestions on provision of health education needs was
made for planners, health educators and programmes planners in health education.
The research design type adopted was the descriptive survey type. All schools in
Kwara State formed the population for the study. Therefore, all principals, staff, students
and their parents formed the human population for the study.
However, a multistage random sampling technique was used in selecting the subjects
used for the study. Only 15 schools in Kwara State were used using purposive sampling
method to pick only schools in Ilorin. All schools had their names written and put in a box.
15 of these schools were randomly picked for the study.
Thereafter, four hundred subjects were sampled for the study. These were all
principals, all RE and Health teachers, all games masters. All parents/teachers association
chairman and treasurers were sampled. For these categories of subjects, total purposive
sampling technique was used. However, for the students, 10 students each from the SS
II and SS III were systematically sampled from each school used for the study hence,
subjects in each of these classes where picked based on
how they appeared on the class registers. The first 5 male names and first 5 female names were
picked from each of SSII and SS III classes in each school. Hence 300 students were
sampled along with 90 subjects from the principals, Health Teachers, Games masters. PTA
Chairman, PTA treasures and 10 games misters.
A questionnaire designed by the researcher was used to collect data. The items (20)
were validated by specialists in health Education and later tested for reliability at Ogbomosho
high school, Oyo State, Nigeria using 30 Students. A test-retest method was adopted with
a 2 weeks interval. Data from the two tests were correlated using Pearson, product moment
correlation Co-efficient. The result showed a reliability ratio of 0.70r.
The hypotheses were tested using the ANOVA statistic at. 0.05 level of significance.
The Duncan multiple range test (DMRT) was used to show direction of differences or
agreement in the respondents' responses.
Results
Data Analysis And Discussion Of Findings
The hypothesis that there will be no significant difference in the respondents' views about
the standard of health education in the secondary school of Kwara State was tested. Tables I
and IT below show the variance in the response patterns of subjects. Analysis ofvarian.ee on the
subjects' responses on the status of school health education in the secondary schools of Kwara State,
Nigeria.
SOURCE
DF SUM OF
SQUARE
Respondents 4
0.4689
Questions
4
0.6200
16
Error
0.4498
TOTAL
24
MEAN
SQUARE
0.1174
0.1647
0.0279
F VALUE
PR,F
4.30
3.01
The calculated F ratio in tlie table-hows a higher value (4.10) than the table value of
3.01. He^e the hypothesis that there will be no significant difference i; the respondents'
views about the status of health education in ne secondary schools of Kwara State, Nigeria
was rejectee. Dmcan Multiple Range Test is presented below.
Table II:
DMRT of ANOVA result in table i
DUNCAN
A school Principals
A health Teachers
A PE Teachers
APIA Rep.
A Students
GROUP
I
1
]
2
20
ME\N
1.9:8
2.04)
NUMBER
15
_______ .
15
U2.2?8
15
30
300
2.U9
2.356
From Table 2 above, it is shown that significant difference exist in the responses
of the respondents used for the study i.e. the school principals, health and PE teachers, PTA
representatives and students. The letter A shows the groups that differ in their responses.
The second hypothesis was that there will be no significant difference in the
responses of respondents on the provision of facilities and equipment for Health Education
in the schools of Kwara State.
TABLE III:
ANOVA Result on provision of facilities and equipment
SOURCE
DF SUM OF
SQUARE
Respondents 4 6 0.0310
Questions
24 0.0426
Error
0.3844
TOTAL
34
MEAN
SQUARE
0.0072
0.1822
0.0122
F VALUE
PR, F
.0.57
2.78
The table above shows that no significant difference exists in the responses of subjects by
groups on the provision of facilities and equipment for heath education in the schools of
Kwara State, Nigeria. The Table shows that the calculated F, 0.57 is less than the table
value 2.78. Hence the hypothesis was accepted.
The third hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the responses of
respondents on the provision of health education personnel in the secondary schools of
Kwara State was also tested.
TABLE IV:
Analysis of variance on responses of respondents on provision of Health Education
personnel.
SOURCE
DF SUM OF
SQUARE
Respondents 4 4 0.5334
Questions
16 0.9252
Error
0.4579
TOTAL
24
MEAN
SQUARE
0.1358
0.2174
0.0273
F VALUE
PR, F
4.79
3.01
!
j
I
From the table, it is shown that the alternative hypothesis that
significant difference exist in the responses of subjects by groups
is accepted. The calculated F value of 4.76 is greater than the
table value 3.01. The hypothesis was rejected.
The Duncan multiple range test data presented in table V
below shows the direction of differences.
Table V:
Duncan Multiple Range Test
DUNCAN
A school Principals
A health Teachers
A-PE Teachers
A PTA Rep.
A Students
GROUP
1
1
1
2
20
MEAN
2.112
1.678
2.030
2.032
1.776
NUMBER
15
15
15
30
300
l he data on table V shows that all the group of respondents, are
tagged A which means that their responses differ.
Discussion
The null hypothesis one was rejected and the alternative
that there exists a significant difference in the respondents'
opinion of the status of school health education in kwara state
secondary schools. In the Duncan mean, the school principals
differed in their scores from all the other respondents who had
a high mean score. This may be because they are the
administrators who are the custodians of the schools' policies
hence, to them the standards are sufficiently high. The Health
Teachers, physical education teachers, PTA representatives and
students are at the receiving end hence they perceived the
standard of education in the schools as been low. The implication
of this is that the schools are not operating at the WHO (1971)
& (2000) level as rehearsed by Green, Jones and Manderscheid
(1996) that schools must ensure health policies, good physical
environment, good social environment, development of personal
health skills and community relation. Fukurni et al (2002) &
Odeniyi (2003) stated unequivocally that it is the presence of
the above that will ensure that the school is providing a safe,
secure and stimulating school environment that will em
teaching and learning of health education.
The hypothesis that there is no significant difference in
the opinion of respondents on the provision of facilities and
equipment for health education was sustained. This is because,
respondents calculated F ratio was less than the table ratio.
Generally, respondents are agreed that facilities and equipment
for health teaching needs upgrading. Udoh (1980) and
Moronkola (2002) are conclusive in their works that teaching
materials can be classified as audiovisual, visual aids, school
plants etc. they reiterated that all of these accelerate the rate at
which pupils learn and imprint a picture in their mind's about
the topic taught. When these are lacking according to them,
health education, facilities and equipment can be seen to be
inadequate.
The third hypothesis was also rejected and replaced with
the alternative hypothesis. The calculated value 4.76 was higher
than the table value of 3.01 at 0.05 level of significance. The
Duncan mean score for the different groups revealed that those
for the health teachers and students were lower than those for
the health teachers and students were lower than those of the
school administrators, and PTA representatives. It is not
surprising that the health teachers and students are of this view
especially that they are at the receiving ends of the burden of
lack of teachers and personnel for health education.
Oyerinde (1992), WHO (1996) & the American academy
of child adolescent psychology (2008) see the school as having
the primary responsibility of health education hence the problem
of personnel should not hander this objectives. As a
recommendation in Oyerinde (1992) it was clarified that health
education should be handled
by professionals and not just
anybodv. The high mean
score for the school principal,
PTA representatives and PE
teachers may be so because
the PE teachers and others
like biology, home economics
teachers, are subsisting to
teach health collaboratively
and incidentally. This
situation is not the best if
the recommendation of
Oyerinde (1992) is reckoned
with and the general education
of the public and the
government is stepped up so
that while the former is ready
to save money spent on
curative medicine, the latter
provides the fund and
environment for such optimal
aim to be achieved.
Conclusions
Based on the findings
of the study the following
were concluded:
(1)
School principals,
health education
teachers,
representatives of PTA,
physical education
teachers and
students are different in
their evaluation of the
status and
standard of health
education in secondary
schools.
(2)
School principals,
health education
teachers,
representatives of PTA,
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
a
n
d
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
n
ot different in their
evaluation of the
standard of Health
education facilities and
equipment in
the secondary schools
of Kwara State,
Nigeria.
School
principals, health education
teachers, physical
education teachers and
representatives of PTA, and
students differ in their
evaluation of the standard of
health
education personnel (in terms
of quantity and quality) in
the secondary schools.Based
on the conclusions of the study
the following were
recommended:
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
(3)
(1)
That advocacy should be
conducted on secondary
school
principals by health
education teachers. This
should take
place in all school type,
levels and at all levels
of
government. This will stem
the careless posture of
people
in authority on the issue of
administration of school
health
education.
(2)
Professionalisation of
health educators is
imperative. This
will stem the practice
of using nonprofessionals in
teaching health
c
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
a
n
d
i
n
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
i
n
s
e
c
(3)
ondary schools.
Health education
teachers should give
necessary
information to other
teachers and
stakeholders in the
school health
programme. This is
because not all stake
holders, principals
and teachers are
health educators.
They hence must be
enlightened.
References
Alison, W. Angus, R, Roz, U.
J. & Beth, M. (2005)
A Coping Exercise:
The
Nursing,
Midwifery and Health
Visiting Contribution
to
Child
Health
Services,
King's
College, London.
American Academy of Child
Adolescent
Psychology
(2008):
Services in School for
Children with Special
Needs: what parents
need to know.
Clark, R.L & Cundey, R.W
(1977) the book of 3rd
Ed.
New
York.
Harcourt Brace Jovial
vickinc.
Cohen, D.A., Nsnani. M., Brooks, B. and Marline, DH (2000).
School based screening for sexually transmitted Disease.
Journal of State Medical Sociology. 151. (2). 617-621. Davies J.M. (1989)
Community Health Preventive medicine and
Social Services 6th Ed. New York. Macmillan Publishing
Ltd.
Euteach (2008) Health Education, Prevention and Health Promotion Including
School Health: www.euteach.com.
Fukumi, S., Narutriko, O.J & Atsuko, A. (2002) A Study of Significance on
Children's Life and Health under School Education: The Second Report in
Relation to the Responsibilities of Yogo Teachers.
Green L.W. (1990) Community Health. St. Louis, Times Mirror/ Mosby College.
Publishing.
Green, J. Jones B.K Manderscheid J.C. (1996) Health Promotion Effectivenes. Journal
of School Health, 5.5. 316-321.
Laoye, J.A. (1981) Principles and Practice of Health Education. London. Mcmillan
Education.
Last, J.M. (1987) Public Health and Human Ecology Sydney. Prentice Hall
Mondo, F. (1998): Online Medical Dictionary,
ww.mondofactQ.com.
Moronkola. O.A. (1997) Teaching Health Education Effectively
in schools. Journal of the Nigeria Association of Physical, Health Education and
Recreation. Oyp chapter (1) 1_48-55.
Moronkola. O.A. (2002), Health Education or Health Promotion. What is in a name.
Health Education & Health Promotion. Z. Ademuwagun. Co.Ed. Royal people
(Nig.) Ltd.
Odeniyi (2003) The Status of School Health Services in Selected Post Primary Schools
in Offa and Local Government Areas of Kwara State. Unpublished Master
Dissertation.
Oyerinde, O. O. (1992) Health Education in the Unper Secondary Schools. A
programme for view under the 6-3-3-4 education system. Contemporary Issue in
Physical Education, Health & Fitness, A publication of the Department of
Exercise & Sport Science, University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A.
Udoh, C.O. (1980) Physical and Health Education, Associate Certificate. Ibadan:
Publication Series, Institutte of Education, University of Ibadan.
Wass, A. (1995) Promoting Health: The Primary Care Approach. Sydney. Harcourt Brace
Company.
WeHness (2009): www.defmitionofwellness.com
Who (1996). Health Education of the Public. World Health Magazine 856.
WHO Information Series on School Health. (2000): Local Action: Creating Health
Promoting in Schools.