BackHome
Refresh: OffView Personal Schedule
Session Submission Summary

Implementing curriculum reforms in under-resourced contexts: what can we learn from Uganda?

Thu, April 21, 9:00 to 10:30pm CDT (9:00 to 10:30pm CDT), Pajamas Sessions, VR 112

Group Submission Type: Formal Panel Session

Proposal

The quality of an education [largely] depends on the quality of its curriculum. The President of Uganda is on record for blaming the lack of employable skill sets among school graduates on the mismatch between school curriculum and the labour market demands (The Independent 2020). There are growing concerns that Uganda’s education system is examination ridden and produces graduates who can hardly meet the market demand. A labour market survey recommended a radical review of Uganda’s secondary education curriculum aimed at developing a set of student competencies that provides meaningful learning pathways for all categories of students, namely those who can continue with an ‘academic’ education after lower secondary, those who can join vocational training courses, and those who choose to directly enter the workforce after Senior Four (S4) (NCDC 2012). Against this background, Uganda undertook a comprehensive curriculum reform of its lower secondary curriculum that it launched at the beginning of the 2020 school calendar. It is hoped that the lower secondary curriculum will produce secondary school graduates to acquire the knowledge, skills, attitudes and competencies to function effectively in a dynamic labour market landscape.
Effective implementation is key to the success of the new lower secondary curriculum. When implementation is not well planned and structured, it can lead to wastage of resources and failure to meet the intended outcomes (Dyer 1999). Among the myriad of factors that influence successful implementation of curriculum, it is important to pay attention to teacher factors such as their training, commitment to teaching, attitudes towards the new curriculum, and knowledge and understanding of the new curriculum reform (Altinyelken 2010).
While significant progress was made in developing the LS curriculum, an attempt by the Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) to nationally roll out its implementation has generated considerable concerns from key education stakeholders. The inadequate training of teachers, inadequate funds, unclear mode of assessment and alleged non-consultation of key education stakeholders are some of the concerns underlying the implementation of the curriculum. The implementation is generally behind schedule following the COVID-19 lockdown measures that resulted in the closure of all schools.

Although policy makers and educators understand the importance of implementing the new curriculum, concrete understanding of how teachers have interpreted and implemented it seem to be lacking. This panel uses the curriculum analysis framework developed by Anderson (2002) to examine how the new Ugandan lower secondary curriculum has been taught and assessed against the expected standards (the prescribed curriculum). The panel bases on the findings from a national level empirical mixed methods research study that is being conducted in 84 lower secondary schools in Uganda with a sample of over 600 education stakeholders, including 588 secondary teachers. The preliminary findings from the study indicate a discrepancy between the curriculum intentions and how teachers perceive, interpret and implement it. The reasons for this discrepancy relate to professional readiness and social, economic and geographical factors as well as the effects of COVID-19 lockdown measures. The panel critically reflects on key policy and practice considerations that should be addressed to ensure a successful implementation of the new curriculum.

The first paper of the panel sets out the key curriculum intentions and expectations by examining the changes introduced in the new curriculum to prepare students for different education pathways and to function effectively in a dynamic world. It further discusses empirical findings on the implementation progress and teachers’ perceptions of preparedness to implement the new curriculum. Preliminary findings indicate a slow roll out of the new curriculum and significant concerns by teachers about inadequate preparation and support. Given the pivotal role that teachers play in the success of curriculum reforms, this paper contends that the inadequate preparation of teachers to implement the new curriculum is an early sign of potential curriculum failure unless timely actions are taken to mitigate its potential negative effect on the desired outcomes of the new curriculum. This is in line with Dyer (1999) assertion that the poor planning and/or structuring of implementation may result in resistance to the proposed reform and unexpected outcomes.

The second paper examines the roles of different stakeholders in the implementation process with a focus on the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of the new lower secondary curriculum. The paper goes further to analyse the teachers’ perceptions and interpretation of the new curriculum, how they have attempted to implement it, and how this is aligned to the prescribed curriculum standards. Since curriculum implementation is a collective effort of different stakeholders, the paper examines the critical success and factors that are likely to shape the extent to which the goal and expectations of the new curriculum will be attained. Preliminary findings reveal a combination of systems related, school, teacher and community-related factors affecting implementation progress.

The last paper probes into how the assessment of the curriculum at classroom level is perceived, interpreted and implemented by teachers in relation to the prescribed standards of the new curriculum and policy expectations. The paper discusses the empirical findings from the national study showing the teachers’ perceived competencies to teach and assess the new curriculum and teachers’ support needs in relation to curriculum assessment. Preliminary findings revealed serious capacity gaps to assess generic skills embedded in the curriculum, and a strong need for continuous professional support tailored to building teachers’ capacity to effectively teach and assess all components of the new competency based lower secondary curriculum.

Sub Unit

Chair

Individual Presentations