The developers of the new O-level curriculum must have cringed as schools, parents and learners ‘celebrated’ last week’s release of Uganda Certificate of Education (UCE) results.
Amidst all this, however, it has left several stakeholders in total confusion. One of the primary objectives of the new curriculum, rolled out in 2020, was a shift from an academically-elite syllabus to one emphasizing the needs of the majority.
Throughout 2024, FRANK KISAKYE attended several classroom sessions in different schools to assess the level of grasp and adherence to the new curriculum. As he reports, the implementation of the new curriculum remains inconsistent.
The new student-centred curriculum, developed by the National Curriculum Development Centre (NCDC) in consultation with Cambridge Education and Curriculum Foundation UK, has become a favourite among students but remains a challenge for many teachers still accustomed to the traditional teacher-centred approach.
Under the new system, the school day begins at 8am, with instruction to end at 2:40pm. From 2:40pm to 4:30pm, learners are expected to engage in teacher-supervised self-learning to foster creativity and innovation. The reduced content load and fewer classroom contact hours were designed to provide students with more time for research, project work, talent development and creativity.
However, a mini-survey conducted by The Observer in 10 rural and urban schools last year found that most schools did not adhere to these timelines. For instance, at many Kampala schools, students continue to wake up at 3am (girls) and 4am (boys), despite compulsory evening preps ending at 9pm for S1 to S3 and 10pm for S4 to S6.
Essentially, this means the students are sleeping for nearly less than five hours, way below the recommended eight hours of uninterrupted sleep for teenagers. Additionally, a number of Kampala schools conducted examination assessments at the beginning of the term for all students, disregarding the new curriculum’s requirement that exams be held only at the end of each year.
ADAPTATION CHALLENGES
According to the Uganda National Examinations Board (Uneb), while 59% of teachers initially had a proper understanding of the new curriculum, 89% admitted they had never attended NCDC training workshops. Even in schools where training was conducted, many teachers clung to the old (‘ekikadde’) syllabus, resisting change.
Some only began adjusting after Uneb released sample questions aligned with the new curriculum. Still, many elite schools opted for a hybrid teaching approach—integrating both the old and new methods—arguing that the new curriculum lacks depth in content and makes the students ‘lazy’.
Yet NCDC insists that if followed to the latter, the new curriculum is even more demanding on the part of the students as they are required to apply critical thinking instead of regurgitating what the teacher teaches. During the course of writing this story, The Observer frequently met a highly- sought-after teacher who moonlights at several different schools in Greater Kampala.
He preferred to remain anonymous in order to give a fair account of the situation. With over 10 years of experience, he believes the new curriculum is more demanding but ideal for a creative and pragmatic teacher. He suggests that effective implementation of the new O-level curriculum requires class sizes to be limited between 30 to 40 students, allowing teachers to personalize instruction and nurture students’ talents.
However, he admits that at one of his schools where he teaches, there are more than 60 students in his classes. Matters are not helped that there are inadequate resources, including the lack of projectors, internet and a reliable power supply. All these omisisons make online research impossible.
“In order to improvise, I resorted to providing printed materials to support the students. Students need encouragement and inspiration from teachers to maximize their potential. Lessons should be engaging and creative,” he emphasizes.
EXAMINATIONS AND SCORING
The new lower secondary curriculum includes 20 subjects, with each school selecting 12. At S1 and S2, students take 11 compulsory subjects plus one elective. At S3 and S4, students must take a minimum of eight and a maximum of nine subjects, seven of which are compulsory.
The compulsory subjects for S1 and S2 include English, Entrepreneurship, Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry, Physics (or General Science for learners with special needs), Geography, History and Political Education, Kiswahili, Physical Education and Religious Education.
For S3 and S4, the compulsory subjects are Mathematics, English, Chemistry, Biology, Physics (or General Science), Geography and History and Political Education, with a maximum of two elective subjects.
A key shift from the old curriculum is the balance between formative and summative assessments. The new system permits only one examination per year, supplemented by continuous assessments in the form of Activities of Integration (AOIs). However, The Observer has observed that many schools continue conducting beginning-of-term (BOT), middle-of-term (MOT), and end-of-term (EOT) exams due to pressure from parents who want frequent academic progress reports.
The new scoring system, which ranges from 1 to 3 points for AOIs, has faced resistance from some teachers who argue it promotes student complacency. Under the R.A.C.E. marking guide, students earn marks based on: Relevance (R) – how well the response aligns with the topic; Accuracy (A) – the correctness of the answers; Coherency (C) – logical flow and structure; and Excellency (E) – unsolicited additional insightful contributions beyond the required response.
Despite these guidelines, some teachers still award students a ‘zero’ for incorrect responses, contrary to the curriculum’s requirement that even incorrect answers receive at least three out of a possible 10 marks for effort. Moreover, report cards have been redesigned to emphasize competencies and life skills over mere academic scores.
Comments now highlight traits such as teamwork, leadership, and communication rather than just numerical grades.
STUDENT CONFIDENCE
One of the most noticeable impacts of the new curriculum is the students’ increased confidence and self-belief— comparable to that of international school students – which obviously has more often than not put them at loggerheads with the established traditional school systems.
If properly implemented, the curriculum nurtures hidden talents through hands-on projects and real-world problem-solving activities. Projects ranging from creating their own classroom learning materials to making cross-cutting marketable projects such as making yoghurt, growing their own vegetables to boost the school diet, writing books, recycling plastics and garbage into household articles and utensils to reduce on pollution within the school and the community.
Nothing impresses the students better than the ability to develop solutions that solve societal problems. Rehma Nakiranda Raja, a teacher, wrote in a provocative engagement piece with her daughter on her Facebook page: “I, went to a school in Matugga and their activity of integration was recycling plastic bottles and entire class had made dustbins out of bottle tops and plastic bottles. Imagine if 100,000 students all over Uganda were given the same assignment and they actually did it, how much of the environment would they have saved by making something that would be used at home or in class.”
The interdisciplinary nature of the new curriculum is another highlight. At a school in Makerere, entrepreneurship students sold skipping ropes made from recycled bottle tops for Shs 1,000 each to Physical Education (PE) students, significantly cheaper than the Shs 3,000 to Shs 5,000 options available in sports shops.
Similarly, a Food and Nutrition class prepared meals worth Shs 1.5 million for a school event, impressing parents despite disputes over revenue distribution.
While the new O-level curriculum has introduced progressive educational reforms, its implementation remains inconsistent. Schools continue to struggle with adherence to the set guidelines, teacher resistance, and resource constraints. However, the potential for nurturing practical skills, confidence, and innovation among students remains promising if only the system can fully embrace the intended changes.
Good
Is it true that 8 subjects in s3 and 4 are refused by uneb