The release of the Mushega Education Policy Review Commission’s report, which contains 284 recommendations to overhaul Uganda’s education system, has triggered both excitement and controversy.
While many have hailed the proposed reforms, some commission members have voiced dissatisfaction with the process, calling for clearer guidance from the start.
The report, which highlights key recommendations across governance, structure, and financing, suggests sweeping changes, including a new 1-6-4-2-3 education structure.
This would reduce the number of years spent in primary education, add a compulsory year of pre-primary education, and eliminate the Primary Leaving Examination (PLE) in favor of a new Uganda Certificate of Basic Education & Training (UCBET).
While the majority of recommendations have garnered public support, particularly the emphasis on quality over quantity, some commissioners feel the focus was misplaced.
“Instead of addressing core issues, the commission spent too much time on peripheral concerns,” told this website.
According to Mushega, these are important, but not the macro issues the commission was supposed to tackle.
There were also concerns about the consultation process, with some members questioning whether local input offered real policy-level solutions.
Mushega’s outreach, which included visits to 13 of Uganda’s 16 sub-regions, was intended to gather diverse perspectives.
However, some commissioners believe the feedback was largely anecdotal and not aligned with the bigger policy picture.
The commission’s critics are particularly concerned that many of the reforms do not address what they consider the education sector’s most urgent issues.
One commissioner explained that while certain problems are relevant, the process seemed to prioritize “symptoms” over addressing deeper systemic issues.
Despite the debate, the report still stands as a bold proposal for the future of Uganda’s education system.
Key recommendations include merging primary and secondary education into a unified “Basic Education” cycle, a move supported by leading education figures like Dr. Mary Goretti Nakabugo, who advocates for a six-year primary cycle.
Nakabugo’s proposal aligns with similar reforms in neighboring Kenya, though she cautioned that the transition would require significant teacher training.
Another key proposal is the elimination of the Primary Leaving Examination (PLE) by 2027.
The report suggests that, rather than the PLE, Uganda should adopt a national assessment at the end of the Basic Education cycle, with continuous assessments throughout.
This shift would represent a major change in how Uganda certifies educational progress.
The commission also recommended introducing career exploration modules in the Basic Education curriculum, alongside increased parental involvement through workshops and community engagement programs.
The report’s 286 pages outline a vision of education that aims to build well-rounded individuals with strong literacy, numeracy, and life skills, while also promoting national unity and cultural preservation.
But with mixed reactions from within the commission itself, the big question remains; will Uganda’s policymakers embrace these changes, or will history repeat itself, as it did with the 1992 Government White Paper on Education, whose recommendations saw limited implementation?
With the final decisions in the hands of the Ministry, and a new committee soon to review the recommendations, Uganda now waits to see if these bold proposals will become reality, or if political will will once again hinder meaningful change.
END.
English 