The year 2016 ended with the presidential pronouncement to halt the curriculum assessment and examination reform (Curasse) undertaken by the National Curriculum Development Centre (NCDC).
The pronouncement was based on the briefing he received from vice chancellors of public universities and education experts. The high-level meeting at State House also resolved to remove agriculture and six other subjects from the O-level curriculum (The Observer, January 2, 2017).
The Curasse reforms were premised on the realization that the current curriculum is overloaded, examination-oriented and unsuitable for the 21st century education. The real point in contest was an attempt by NCDC to decongest the school timetables and create room for practical learning. The curriculum reform sought to merge subjects into eight learning areas which must have attracted resistance from the elite middle-class.
Since the establishment of the Uganda National Examinations Board in 1980, the O-level curriculum has been based on Uneb syllabi and regulations. The curriculum reviews have been limited in scope and characterized by accommodation of new subjects which resulted in overloaded school timetables, leaving little room for practical subjects such as agriculture.
Many Ugandans are concerned about the ever-growing length of a school-day endured by children nowadays amidst declining academic achievement. Some schools even teach at night, leaving no time for students to revise their voluminous notes copied all-day. Decongesting the timetables is, therefore, a justified cause for reform.
However, a complete removal of agriculture and technical subjects from secondary schools is an oversight. It simply perpetrates channeling students’ efforts solely towards universities even when we know that only a few can make it that far due to economic and other reasons.
The scramble for such an education among the middle-class has sent school fees through the roof. Many middle-class families are incurring high debts just to see children through school who, instead, end up on streets in search of jobs.
The integration of vocational subjects into the school curriculum is always a contentious issue. Opponents argue that an emphasis on core subjects is itself vocational since students are able to apply the knowledge learned to create jobs and that such a move also makes education provision cheaper.
The reality, however, is that secondary education is very pyramidal and elitist with a majority of students having to drop out before acquiring a skill for after-school life.
A core curriculum, such as the one proposed in the State House meeting, is often too literary and less relevant to the learners and only integration of ‘applied subjects’ can bridge the gap between home and school. In fact, integration of agriculture and vocational subjects was, in part, a result of the move to nationalize Uganda’s education in the 1970s by making the curriculum relevant to local needs.
In Uganda, almost all education review commissions, starting with the Phelps-Stokes Commission of 1924, have recommended the teaching of agriculture. Nature study entailed maintenance of a school garden, which also doubled as a source of food for teachers.
Until recently, all secondary schools were required to teach agriculture, plus at least two other practical subjects. The problem, though, has been the Uneb-driven pedagogy and a lack of facilitation for these subjects since they are neither supported under the Btvet policy nor as sciences by Sesemat.
It is not enough to contend with science education per se without application in subjects such as agriculture and technical education. For example, while every student is taught photosynthesis right from primary school, through secondary school to university, very few know that such knowledge is beneficial in determining plant populations and crop yields.
Until I took a class in plant physiology, none of my other teachers had related photosynthesis to leaf area and dry matter yield in a unit of land! Most farmers cannot realize optimum yields in their gardens simply because of failure of our teachers to link photosynthesis to crop spacing. Biology teachers will teach apical dominance and hormones associated with it without relating to ‘tillering’ which has benefits in crop production.
The universalization of education through UPE, USE and UPPET simply stretches the education budget by creating more cycles of schooling without the much-needed preparation of students with after-school skills. Such novel initiatives by government will only lead to the stockpiling of graduate unemployment if a skills curriculum is ignored.
While I applaud the resolutions to reduce subjects, I believe the presidential pronouncements were biased by the elite views of the middle-class that attended the meeting. They did not take needs of the majority of Uganda’s children who are unable to attain higher education into consideration. It is these children, often dropouts and not enrolled in technical institutes, who benefit from a well-facilitated vocational curriculum at O-level.
It is cheaper to integrate vocational facilities into existing school infrastructure at every sub-county than set up a parallel technical-vocational system. Integration also hastens a change in attitudes by parents and children who consider technical education to be suited for academic failures.
To cut costs on vocational education at O-level, government can either accredit schools with farms, wood and metal workshops or simply provide a matching grant system that supplements any investments made by the schools’ boards of governors.
Schools with land or workshops could also be encouraged to forge partnerships with the private sector through which students provide labour in exchange for skills.
The author is a lecturer at Makerere University. Â