The suggestion of introducing a new curriculum a decade ago was met with great optimism. Its promise to transform learners into job creators rather than job seekers seemed like the ultimate solution to Uganda’s unemployment crisis.
By shifting focus from theoretical knowledge to practical skills, the curriculum aimed to equip students with tools to thrive in a competitive world. However, the results of the first cohort of students under this system have revealed a troubling reality; the unintended consequences of a well-intentioned reform.
When the results were released, the usual jubilation was noticeably absent. Instead, confusion and disappointment prevailed. The new grading system, which awarded nearly every student "Result One," left parents, teachers and communities bewildered.
Take Camilla, for instance. A consistently brilliant student who scored Aggregate Four in her Primary Leaving Examinations (PLE) and attended one of the country’s premier schools, she was expected to excel. Her "Result One" was no surprise. What was shocking, however, was Brian, an average student with little interest in academics who spent more time serving suspension away from school than he did in a classroom, also receiving the same result. This uniformity in grading, while seemingly inclusive, raises serious questions about fairness, effort and the value of hard work.
One of the most immediate consequences of this grading system is the erosion of competitiveness among learners. When hardworking students such as Camilla receive the same result as their less academically inclined peers, the incentive to excel diminishes. Why should students strive for excellence if the system fails to recognise and reward their efforts?
Competition has always been a driving force for innovation and improvement. By eliminating it, we risk fostering a culture of mediocrity where effort and achievement are no longer valued. This not only undermines the motivation of high-performing students but also fails to prepare all learners for the realities of a competitive global economy.
The post-colonial curriculum, often criticised for its emphasis on theoretical knowledge, had one undeniable strength; it nurtured critical thinking. While it may have produced fewer job creators, it equipped students with the ability to analyse, innovate, and solve complex problems; skills that are indispensable in any field.
The new curriculum, with its focus on practical skills, risks producing graduates who can perform tasks but lack the creativity and critical thinking needed to innovate. For instance, if every graduate is taught to make mats or chairs, how will they differentiate their products in a saturated market? Without critical thinking, we risk creating a generation of frustrated job creators who lack the ingenuity to compete locally or globally.
The solution lies not in abandoning practical skills but in integrating them with theoretical knowledge. A balanced curriculum would equip students with both the technical skills to create and the critical thinking to innovate. Over time, learners would naturally gravitate toward their strengths; some becoming skilled artisans, others becoming thinkers and problem-solvers.
Moreover, the system must find a way to reward effort and achievement. Recognising and celebrating excellence motivates students to push their limits and strive for greatness. It also prepares them for a world where success is earned through hard work and innovation.
Beyond academics and practical skills, what our learners need most are life skills; self-control, resilience, adaptability, and a hunger for knowledge. These qualities enable individuals to navigate challenges, seize opportunities, and thrive in an ever-changing world. A curriculum that prioritises these skills alongside academic and technical training would produce well-rounded individuals capable of contributing meaningfully to society.
The new curriculum, while well-intentioned, has inadvertently created a utopia for underachievers; a system where effort is neither recognised nor rewarded. By producing uniform results, it risks stifling competitiveness, discouraging excellence, and producing graduates who lack the creativity and critical thinking needed to succeed. Let us not settle for mediocrity in the name of inclusivity. Instead, let us build a curriculum that challenges, inspires, and prepares our students for the realities of life beyond the classroom.
