Prime
A-Level curriculum: A reflection of poor planning and lack of commitment
Ms Gloria Kyarisiima
What you need to know:
- Education reforms should not be trial-and-error experiments. If Uganda is serious about curriculum development, then reforms must be implemented with clear timelines
As an educator and consultant, I strongly believe that while curriculum reform is essential for improving education quality, its implementation must be carefully planned and executed.
The National Curriculum Development Centre (NCDC) and the Ministry of Education’s decision to push the A-Level transitional curriculum to 2028, despite having had four years to prepare, exposes a troubling lack of seriousness in the sector. When the pioneers of the revised O-Level curriculum started Senior One, it was clear that after four years, they would need a corresponding A-Level curriculum.
This provided ample time for planning, piloting, and refining the transition. However, the fact that the ministry is now citing the "steady implementation of the O-Level curriculum" as a reason for delaying A-Level reforms suggests that they failed to think holistically about the process from the start.
A curriculum is a continuous system; you cannot introduce a new O-Level structure without simultaneously planning for its natural progression into A-Level. The implications of this delay are severe. Students who started with the new O-Level curriculum are now left in uncertainty, with teachers and schools lacking clear guidelines on how to prepare them for the next stage of education.
This affects subject specialisation, teacher training, and school resource allocation. It also disrupts students' academic pathways, potentially disadvantaging them compared to those who went through the old system.
This situation reflects a broader issue of poor strategic planning within Uganda’s education sector. Instead of proactive and research-driven implementation, we see reactionary decision-making that does not prioritise students' needs. If the ministry knew the A-Level curriculum was not ready, why did they not communicate this earlier? Why was there no structured transition plan from the onset?
This lack of foresight undermines public confidence in educational reforms and raises concerns about the ministry’s ability to manage large-scale curriculum changes effectively. Education reforms should not be trial-and-error experiments. If Uganda is serious about curriculum development, then reforms must be implemented with clear timelines, adequate teacher training, stakeholder involvement, and a solid transition strategy.
The postponement to 2028 is not just a delay; it is a failure in planning and an indication that education authorities are not prioritising the future of learners as they should. The Ministry of Education must now come out with a clear roadmap, addressing concerns from educators, students, and parents.
They must also ensure that this delay does not lead to another round of postponements, which would further erode trust in the system. The future of Uganda’s learners cannot continue to be at the mercy of poor planning.
Ms Gloria Kyarisiima is an Education consultant
>>>>Stay updated by following our WhatsApp and Telegram channels;Daily Monitor Telegram channel Daily Monitor WhatsApp Channel
