The proposal to waive JAMB/UTME requirements for admission into Colleges of Education is one of those policies that looks good on access and expansion, but becomes more complicated when you test it against quality, labour outcomes, and long-term system strength.

At its core, the policy is trying to solve a real problem: Nigeria’s teacher supply gap. Many Colleges of Education struggle with low enrolment, and the teaching profession itself has lost attractiveness due to poor pay, weak incentives, and limited prestige. Removing the UTME barrier lowers entry friction and could increase the number of candidates willing to study education. In a country with persistent shortages of qualified teachers, especially in rural public schools, that objective is not trivial.

But the trade-off is where the concern begins.

The most immediate criticism is that the policy may dilute entry quality. UTME, despite its flaws, acts as a national screening filter. Removing it shifts admission control almost entirely to O’Level results and institutional discretion. In a system where grading inconsistencies already exist across schools and exam bodies, relying less on standardized testing can make admissions less predictable and potentially less merit-based.

The downstream effect is what critics are pointing to: if weaker candidates enter teacher training, you risk producing teachers with limited subject mastery. That matters more than it sounds, because teacher competence directly influences foundational learning in primary and secondary schools. A weak teacher pipeline becomes a multiplier of weak student outcomes.

The policy also reflects a familiar pattern in education reform—loosening entry requirements instead of fixing underlying attractiveness.

The real issues in Colleges of Education are not just admission filters. They include:

• Low professional prestige of teaching
• Poor remuneration and delayed career progression
• Underfunded training institutions
• Weak practical teaching exposure

If those problems remain untouched, increasing admission numbers alone does not improve teacher quality. It may simply produce more graduates entering an already strained labour market with limited absorption capacity.

In that sense, the policy risks addressing supply volume while ignoring supply quality and demand absorption.

To be fair, there is a legitimate equity argument in its favour. UTME has long been criticized for reinforcing inequality. Students from under-resourced schools often perform poorly not because they lack potential, but because they lack preparation. Removing UTME for education programmes could open a pathway for candidates who would otherwise be shut out by exam disadvantage rather than ability.

If implemented carefully, this could broaden participation and diversify who becomes a teacher—especially from rural and low-income backgrounds where teacher shortages are most severe.

The real weakness in the policy debate is that it is framed as a binary choice: keep UTME or remove it. That is not necessary.

A stronger approach would be a hybrid model:

• Keep UTME but lower the cut-off for education programmes
• Introduce aptitude or subject-based screening by Colleges of Education
• Strengthen CAPS oversight rather than bypassing UTME entirely
• Require bridging foundation courses for borderline candidates

This preserves a minimum national benchmark while still expanding access.

There is also a softer but important risk: perception. If teaching becomes the one field where entry barriers are significantly lower than others, it can reinforce the idea that education is a “default option” rather than a deliberate professional choice. That perception problem affects morale, recruitment quality, and eventually retention.

Countries that successfully improved education outcomes (even in comparable contexts) did not weaken teacher entry standards—they strengthened training pipelines and incentives.

The policy is well-intentioned but incomplete. It correctly identifies access as a problem but underestimates how tightly teacher quality is linked to entry standards.

If implemented as-is, it may increase the number of trainees without guaranteeing better teachers. And in education systems, quantity without quality rarely solves the core problem—it often postpones it.

A better reform would not remove the gate; it would redesign it.

S NU -6