Improving Literacy in Uganda: Why Pedagogical Reforms and Intervention Programs are Underperforming

Abstract

Pedagogical reforms, specifically, the Thematic Curriculum and the Local Language Policy, have failed to improve literacy in Uganda despite a concerted effort from the Government of Uganda and its international development partners. This paper distills the major literacy programs used to scale up the reforms nationwide and summarizes what they did and their effects on the different components of reading. It concludes with a discussion on why the reforms and their intervention programs underperformed. It argues for a reform approach that ensures that the system has sufficient capacity to deliver the new content and pedagogy before implementation.

Keywords

literacy curriculum local language pedagogy Uganda

Improving Literacy in Uganda

Eighty-seven percent of children from sub-Saharan Africa who are in school are in learning poverty and do not have basic literacy by age 10 (Brossard et al., 2020, p. 1). Yet, literacy is a fundamental human right and is influential in an individual's financial success and the development of a country (United Nations Children's Fund [UNICEF], 2019; United States Agency for International Development [USAID], 2018; Wagner et al., 2012). Africa is, therefore, challenged to identify effective interventions for weak systems and low-resource settings (Damon et al., 2016). Research evidence points to pedagogical reforms to achieve success at scale; however, it also shows that improvements in only pedagogy have effects of a small magnitude (Chakera et al., 2020; Conn, 2014; Snilstveit et al., 2015).

In 2007, Uganda also embarked on pedagogical reforms through a new curriculum (Thematic Curriculum) delivered in local languages (Local Language Policy) to improve literacy in primary schools (Altinyelken, 2010). The reforms were scaled-up nationwide through literacy programs developed, funded, and implemented by international development agencies in partnership with the Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES). Notwithstanding the concerted efforts, literacy levels remain low (Akello et al., 2015; National Planning Authority [NPA], 2018a). Literacy surveys by Uwezo illuminate this challenge. Uwezo (2019) shows a drop in grade 3–7 learners who could read and comprehend a basic story of grade 2 level difficulty, from 39% in 2015 to 33% in 2018.

We premise in this context to draw on data from relevant publications and reports to answer the following questions:

What are the major literacy programs implemented to boost literacy in public primary schools in Uganda?

What was the effect of the different literacy programs on learners’ competencies on the various components of reading?

Why have pedagogical reforms and intervention programs failed to enhance literacy in public primary schools of Uganda?

This paper is a coherent synopsis of literacy reform in Uganda in the past two decades; summarizing, the works of the Government of Uganda (GOU) and its development partners to improve literacy. Herein, we discuss the approaches, the achieved effects, committed mistakes, and point out what to do for redress. The paper will give the GOU and its development partners much-needed insights to re-think their educational reform strategy and approach. Ultimately, we hope to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of Uganda's literacy predicament among education stakeholders to provide an impetus for a country-wide debate for civic-driven change.

Background and Context

Improving Learning in Africa: What Works?

How to improve learning is a global concern (Wagner et al., 2012). Although Sustainable Development Goal four advocates for inclusive and quality education for all (Chakera et al., 2020; Damon et al., 2016), Africa is in a learning crisis (Bashir et al., 2018; UNICEF, 2019), and this has inspired several studies on how best to achieve redress.

Conn (2014) examined 12 interventions in sub-Saharan Africa and found that pedagogical interventions had higher pooled effect sizes compared to other interventions like school management programs, school supplies interventions, and those aimed at changing the class size or composition. Snilstveit et al. (2015) support the finding; in a systematic review synthesis of results from 238 studies evaluating the effects of different education programs in 52 lower and middle-income countries, they found that pedagogical interventions can be successful if teachers are trained sufficiently, buy into the program, and when appropriate quantities of high-quality materials are availed timely. They further stress that the innovative content and methods introduced must be consistently applied in classrooms over sufficient time to make a difference. Chakera et al. (2020) also argue that significant and consistent impact is only possible through a combination of interventions like altered teacher pedagogy, adaptive-instruction¹ techniques, repeated teacher training and professional development, community mobilization for learning, improved accountability, and system-level capacity building. The shared argument of these studies is the need to improve multiple components of an education system alongside pedagogy.

Research on Early Grade Reading (EGR) interventions also advocates against singular approaches. Graham and Kelly (2018) argue that although EGR interventions are consistently effective, they are neither the panacea nor a guaranteed means of improving learning. They discovered that; despite having substantial effects on some reading components, only a few EGR interventions had enough impact; to create fluent readers on average. They also emphasize the need to improve other aspects of the education system, including school infrastructure, community involvement, and early childhood development.

Notably, Damon et al. (2016) clustered different interventions into investment priorities based on available research evidence on their effectiveness. These include:

Interventions that work: merit-based scholarships, remedial instruction, decreasing pupil–teacher ratios, and building new schools.

Interventions that work given certain preconditions: conditional cash transfers, provision of school-based meals, computers, and electronic games, changes in school governance that implement school-based management, and teacher performance pay.

Promising interventions that need more evidence: increasing the number of hours in a school day, providing school feeding, providing multilevel teaching materials with parent–teacher partnerships, providing a package of infrastructure, materials, training, and contract teachers.

Interventions that do not work: monitoring teaching attendance without rewards or penalties for teacher behavior or performance.

Interventions with insufficient research: reading-intensive pedagogy accompanied with reading materials; it has shown some positive results along with insignificant ones.

Pedagogical Reforms in Uganda

The Thematic Curriculum and the Local Language Policy

According to Ward et al. (2006), Uganda has labored for decades to develop a comprehensive primary curriculum to enhance the literacy, numeracy, and life skills of children; one that accommodates the local context, cultural diversity, and rural-urban variations. The curriculum has since undergone many reforms. The 2000/2002 Primary Curriculum, whose implementation was tedious and ineffective owing to multiple challenges from poor planning and lack of an implementation budget, replaced the 1990 Curriculum. Its shortcomings prompted the 2004 Primary Curriculum Review, whose work begun in December 2003 and ended in June 2004. The recommendations of the Review birthed the current Thematic Curriculum in 2007.

The Thematic Curriculum organizes competencies and knowledge content into selected themes that are most relevant to the overall educational aims and objectives and identify with the everyday lives and activities of the children. It also introduced the class-teacher-system and merged using local languages as a medium of instruction in lower primary grades 1–3. Grade 4 is the transitional class where children convert from the theme-based to a subject-based curriculum and gradually shift from a local language to English as a medium of instruction. The P4 curriculum is thus the bridge between the Thematic (P1–P3) and the Subject-Based (P5–P7) curricula (National Planning Authority, 2018b).

Shortcomings of the Local Language Policy. Since its nationwide rollout, the Local Language Policy has been a contentious topic in Uganda; yet, its perception among stakeholders is crucial for successful implementation. Literature shows a difference in perception between people in rural areas and those from urban areas; the former seem opposed to the policy. UNICEF (2017) noted that some parents in rural areas attribute the poor performance of schools to using local language in classrooms instead of English. Altinyelken et al. (2014) recounted the differences in opinion among education stakeholders in Uganda. Both the parents and teachers in rural areas perceived the policy as limiting to their children's ability to transition to upper primary and as a constraint to academic success in secondary education. However, key informants, like officials from the ministry, district, and the National Curriculum Development Centre (NCDC) and academics praised the policy and expressed a firm belief that it would improve literacy and life skills. Tembe and Norton (2008) also observed a similar pattern in rural communities where parents appreciated English more than the local language (Lunyole) and believed that English facilitates mobility across the country. These studies show that 'technocrats’ view the policy based on its potential, whereas the communities judge the policy on its apparent impact on their children, which is limited. In urban areas (Kampala), Altinyelken et al. (2014) noted that teachers commended the policy though they use English as the instruction language. However, Tembe and Norton (2008) had a contrasting finding among parents in urban areas who opposed teaching a local language at school and considered local languages only appropriate for use at home and in the community.

Beyond its perception, implementing the Local Language Policy also bears shortcomings. Altinyelken et al. (2014) found that teachers cannot appropriately implement the policy. Classroom observations found that some teachers translated words from the local language into English to give children more vocabulary of English words. Others repeatedly explained the English material while teaching English, which takes time away from covering the curriculum. Furthermore, the policy should introduce Child-Centered Pedagogy (CCP) in Ugandan classrooms. However, Altinyelken (2010) found its presence limited therein. They attributed this to education policies that focused more on introducing new pedagogy and less on what is workable and realistic during implementation resulting in disparities between policy and practice. They further argue that teachers’ attitudes are not the problem, but the lack of human and material resources, capacity shortages, and shortcomings in curriculum design. Piper and Miksic (2011) also highlight on how capacity gaps can create further problems. They compared the transition periods in Kenya and Uganda. In Kenya, the percentage of local language instruction gradually and consistently declined between grades 1 and 7; the largest drop of 15% occurring between grades 4 and 5. In contrast for Uganda, local language use was consistently above 70% in grades 1–3, and was highest in grade 3, at 76.8%. Then it dropped by 63.6% between grades 3 and 4. This leaves children in P4 exposed to unhealthy doses of English; a language they are not familiar with, recreating the learning problem intended to be averted by the Local Language Policy. National Planning Authority (2018c) also found existing gaps in teachers’ capacity owing to inadequate requisite training. They pointed out that although each Primary Teachers College (PTC) should have one local language tutor, out of 45, only 20 are available within the PTC system, while 25 are vacant. Ssentanda (2014) also highlights how uncoordinated preprimary education can interact with the Local Language Policy to create learning problems. They argue that after the 2–3 years of preprimary education offered in English, introducing learners to reading in local languages at grade 1–3 and then again to English from grade 4–7 creates a highly varying and inconsistent environment that can inhibit learning.

Teaching children reading and writing in local languages has not yielded the expected outcomes (Akello et al., 2015). Trudell (2016) attests and notes that children learning in their local languages are not performing significantly better on EGR assessments than those taught in English. However, they nullify the attribution of the unsatisfactory results to the use of the local languages. They assert that language of instruction is simply one of several components of quality education and cannot account by itself for the success or failure of a primary grade curriculum. They point to the gaps in other components of quality education, including:

teacher-related aspects like their presence in the classroom and competency in both pedagogy and content;

curriculum features like the number of subjects and time allocated for teaching periods;

School leadership,

School infrastructure like classrooms and toilets; and

socioeconomic factors that affect health, nutrition, and parental support.

They also point out the problem of “early exit transitional” bilingual education of hurriedly using a local language in only three lower classes, and then English becomes the medium of instruction for the rest of primary, secondary, and higher education. Although Piper and Miksic (2011) also advocate for improvements in the education system, they contest the notions that more local language instruction automatically leads to higher outcomes on assessments carried out in the mother tongue, and that reading skills in the mother tongue automatically transfer over into efficient reading outcomes in English.

Literacy Programs in Uganda

These were:

USAID/Uganda School Health and Reading Program (SHRP)

Literacy Achievement and Retention Activity (LARA)

Uganda Teacher and School Effectiveness Project (UTSEP)

The USAID/Uganda School Health and Reading Program (SHRP)

Program Background

The SHRP ran from May 2012 to August 2019.² RTI International implemented it in collaboration with SIL Language Education and Development (SIL LEAD). The program aimed to improve EGR and transition to English by leveraging the nexus of language, pedagogy, and instructional materials. USAID funded the initiative to support the (GoU) to develop, implement, assess, and scale up the Local Language Policy under the MoES.

SHRP activities included training PTC tutors, Coordinating Centre Tutors (CCTs),³ district and area inspectors, and head teachers to train and support teachers to teach reading effectively; supporting the NCDC to develop language boards, reading instructional materials, and pupil primers in English and 12 local languages. SHRP trained 14,210 teachers, 9,277 head teachers, and approximately 250 CCTs in EGR methodologies and leadership.

Implementing SHRP Result 1⁴ activities started in 2013 in Cluster 1 districts and schools with languages, Luganda, Ateso, Runyankole/Rukiga, and Leb Lango. In 2014, they extended to Cluster 2 to cover languages; Runyoro/Rutooro, Acholi, Lugbarati, and Lumasaaba. Finally, in 2015, the program reached Cluster 3 to include the Lugwere, Nakarimojong, Lukhonzo, and Lusoga languages. The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago was responsible for SHRP Performance and Impact Evaluation.

Achievements (2016)⁵

Achievements Compared to the Control Group. According to National Opinion Research Center (2016a), the interventions in cluster 1 (3 years) and cluster 2 (2 years) had a positive impact on letter-sound identification, fluency, and reading comprehension; however, the effect was not statistically significant. Tables 1 and 2 show the number of additional/more letter sounds, words, and reading comprehension questions correctly identified/answered by learners under SHRP compared to the control group for cluster 1 and cluster 2.

Table 1.

Additional Gains in Cluster 1 Learners’ Performance (End of P3).

Language	Additional Correct Sounds	Additional Correct Words	Additional Correct Comprehension Questions
English	2.4	3.4	0.2
Luganda	5.0	3.0	0.3
Leblango	2.5	0.1	−0.0
Ateso	1.8	4.4	0.3
Runyankole/Rukiga	1.9	6.3	0.3

Note. Adapted from Final Performance Evaluation: School Health and Reading Program by NORC, 2016, p. 16.

Table 2.

Additional Gains in Cluster 2 Learners’ Performance (End of P2).

Language	Additional Correct Sounds	Additional Correct Words	Additional Correct Comprehension Questions
English	0.4	1.3	0.0
Runyoro/Rutooro	0.8	2.6	0.2
Acoli	1.4	1.6	0.1
Lugbarati	−1.0	0.8	0.0
Lumasaaba	0.8	−0.0	−0.0

Note. Adapted from Final Performance Evaluation: School Health and Reading Program by NORC, 2016, p. 16.

Achievements Compared to Targets. The ability to read 20 words per minute (wpm) of an oral reading fluency (ORF) passage was the target for reading improvement after two years of schooling (end of P2). Table 3 shows the average oral-reading fluency scores for the different languages in clusters 1 and 2.

Table 3.

Oral Reading Fluency Results (wpm) After 2 and 3 Years Under the Program for Cohorts 1 and 2.

Language	After two years in the program (P2)	After three years in the program (P3)
COHORT 1
Luganda	7.5	17.5
Leblango	2.3	4.2
Ateso	1.5	7.6
Runyankole/Rukiga	7.7	20.2
COHORT 2
English	1.5	-
Runyoro/Rutooro	1.6	-
Lugbarati	0.4	-
Lumasaaba	5.7	-

Note. Adapted from Final Performance Evaluation: School Health and Reading Program by NORC, 2016, p. 17.

The scores are below 20 wpm for all languages at the end of P2. Even at the end of P3, the target of 20 wpm was reached only by Runyankole/Rukiga.

Table 4 shows the percentage of students who could read 20 wpm compared to the expected/target percentage set for each cluster and language in the SHRP PMP of March 2016.

Table 4.

Oral Reading Fluency Targets and Achievements at the end of P2 for Cohorts 1 and 2.

Language	Luganda		Leblango		Ateso		Runyankole-Rukiga
COHORT 1	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F
Baseline	0.0%	0.0%	0.2%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.2%
Target	15.0%	15.0%	5.0%	5.0%	5.0%	5.0%	15.0%	15.0%
End of P2	14.7%	20.2%	3.5%	3.8%	1.5%	1.8%	11.7%	17.2%
COHORT 2	Leb-Acoli		Lugbarati		Lumasaaba		Runyoro-Rutooro
Baseline	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.2%	0.4%
Target	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%	10.0%	15.0%	15.0%
End of P2	4.8%	2.0%	4.1%	2.4%	0.5%	0.5%	9.0%	11.6%

Target = Percentage of students expected to read 20 words per minute.

Note. Adapted from Final Performance Evaluation: School Health and Reading Program by NORC, 2016, p. 17.

Only Luganda learners met the targets. Runyankole-Rukiga learners only came close. Overall, the program failed to achieve the targeted percentage of students that could read 20 wpm.

Final Evaluation (2017). The evaluation established the overall effect of SHRP EGR activities on learners’ literacy skills for all clusters. Figures 1–3 show the impact of SHRP on letter-sound identification since the beginning for clusters 1, 2, and 3. They reveal the additional letter sounds correctly identified by learners under the program compared to those who were not.

Figure 1.

The estimated effect of SHRP on letter sound identification (cluster 1). Note. Adapted from Performance & Impact Evaluation (P&IE) of the USAID/Uganda School Health and Reading Program: Result 1 School Level Interventions Impact Evaluation – Final Report by NORC, 2017, p. 26.

Figure 2.

The estimated effect of SHRP on letter sound identification (cluster 2). Note. Adapted from Performance & Impact Evaluation (P&IE) of the USAID/Uganda School Health and Reading Program: Result 1 School Level Interventions Impact Evaluation – Final Report by NORC, 2017, p. 3.

Figure 3.

The estimated effect of SHRP on letter sound identification (cluster 3). Note. Adapted from Performance & Impact Evaluation (P&IE) of the USAID/Uganda School Health and Reading Program: Result 1 School Level Interventions Impact Evaluation – Final Report by NORC, 2017, p. 34.

According to NORC (2017a), SHRP had a positive effect on cluster 1 that received interventions for four years; but, it was low in absolute values. Cluster 2 and 3 that received the interventions for four years and two years respectively showed a lack of or very modest impact. There was no evidence to show that SHRP affected listening comprehension or English receptive vocabulary for any cluster/language except for Acholi, where the effect on listening comprehension was negative. SHRP activities did not develop language skills or English vocabulary above and beyond the development in control schools. The only reading skill that showed promising and consistent results was ORF. NORC explicitly asserted that despite the positive effects in ORF, SHRP's focused interventions over multiple years did little to get meaningful results on Ugandan students’ overall reading abilities and attributed this to four potential explanations, including.

Inefficient teacher training fell short of equipping and motivating teachers to implement SHRP techniques.

Supervision support was inadequate to help teachers implement SHRP techniques effectively.

Community mobilization efforts did not complement classroom efforts at home.

High absenteeism among learners and teachers led to minimal learning.

Literacy Achievement and Retention Activity (LARA)

Program Background

Implemented by RTI International and World Vision in partnership with the GOU, the USAID-funded Literacy Achievement and Retention Activity ran from April 7, 2015, to April 6, 2021.⁶ Its overall aim was to improve the reading skills of 1.3 million primary-grade learners in government schools across 28 districts in Uganda. The program activities centered on two result areas, including. Result 1 (R1)⁷: improved MoES and stakeholders’ capacity to deliver EGR in three local languages (Luganda, Runyankole-Rukiga, and Runyoro-Rutooro), and English; and Result 2 (R2): improved retention in primary grades (P1–P4), through the reduction of school-related gender-based violence (SRGBV) resulting in safer school environments (NORC, 2016b).

The program activities to achieve R1 included supporting capacity enhancement in the education system, training teachers in the EGR method, building effective involvement of children, parents, and communities in promoting literacy activities and attainment, continuous assessment monitoring, distribution of teaching and learning materials and supplemental reading materials, teacher support supervision, and running the Uganda Learning/Literacy Campaign (NORC, 2017b, 2020). Activities were implemented in 13 districts during Year 1 (cluster 1) and 15 districts in Year 2 (cluster 2). By 2018, after 3 years, the program had trained 15,405 teachers (92%) from 3,345 schools, reached 906,962 learners (70%), and had distributed 2,495,387 (109%) in three local languages. NORC at the University of Chicago was the independent evaluator of the performance and impact of LARA.

Achievements. LARA had a positive effect and similar effect on the reading performance of cluster 2 P3 learners in the Luganda and Runyankole/Rukiga regions. The SRGBV-related program registered no difference in reading achievements between P3 learners in T2 and T1, meaning that R2 interventions brought no additional benefits to learners’ reading ability (NORC, 2020). This effect is illustrated in Figure 4 that shows the number of correct words per minute that learners in the treatment groups (T1 and T2) could read from a short grade-2 (P2) level paragraph. In both groups, learners performed better than those in the control group; however, the differences between T1 and T2 are minimal.

Figure 4.

Achievements in oral reading fluency for P3 of the control, T1, and T2 groups (wpm). Note. Adapted from Uganda Performance and Impact Evaluation for Literacy Achievement and Retention Activity by NORC (2020, p. XV).

Overall, LARA reduced the number of P3 non-readers and increased the percentage of learners that can read 20 wpm in the ORF subtask. However, the reading skills of learners remained significantly low by the end of P3. On average, learners could only identify 14 correct letter sounds in a minute. Also, over 25% of P3 learners under the program remained non-readers; they could not read a single word from a short grade-2 level paragraph. On average, ORF was around 17 words per minute and is below the threshold of 60 wpm needed for oral reading comprehension.

Uganda Teacher and School Effectiveness Project (UTSEP)

Project Background

UTSEP contributed to implementing the 2010–2015 and 2017–2020 Education Sector Strategy Plans. It was a five-year project implemented by the MoES from March 2015 to March 2020 using a grant from the Global Partnership for Education/World Bank. The project aimed to support the government to improve teacher and school effectiveness in public primary education schools. Project activities were implemented under three components, including Component 1 (Effective Teachers): enhancing teachers’ effectiveness through EGR training and ensuring they are present at school. Component 2 (Effective Schools): improving the school environment through improving; management, accountability, and learning conditions, including school facilities (classrooms, offices, water and sanitation facilities, teacher housing). Component 3 (Technical Assistance and capacity building): this involved financing advisory, technical, monitoring and evaluation, implementation, and capacity building support on the level of the education system.

The program trained 17,002 teachers in 2,727 primary schools to deliver the EGR methodology in 29 districts, 66 practicing nursery school teachers in 2,559 ECD centers under the Community Child Care program, and 1,201 headteachers and members of School Management Committees in school leadership, management, and accountability. They also procured and supplied 13,727,399 textbooks to 12,198 public primary schools, 10,681 metallic storage boxes to 2,727 schools benefiting under EGR and 962 primary schools with less than three permanent classrooms for storage of P1–P4 primers, and 100 motorcycles for PTCs and Coordinating Centres. They also provided 145 primary schools with new facilities (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2020).

The Uganda National Examinations Board (UNEB), through its National Assessment of Progress in Education (NAPE), was the body responsible for carrying out assessments on children's learning. NAPE conducted three Early Grade Reading Assessments (UNEB-EGRA) including, Baseline (2016), Midline (2017), and End line (2018) for both English and Local languages following the cohort of pupils from P1 to P3 (Uganda National Examinations Board, 2018).

Summary of Project Achievements

Table 5 summarizes the additional benefits⁸ from UTSEP activities for the number of letters learners could correctly sound per minute, the percentage of learners who could read 20 or more words per minute, and the percentage of learners who could answer one or more reading comprehension questions.

Table 5.

Additional Gains Across Different Reading Components.

Language	Letters Sounded Correctly Per Minute	Learners Able to Read 20 or More wpm (%)	Learners Able to Correctly Answer At Least One Reading Comprehension Question (%)
English	8.3	10.9	11
Ateso	9.1	10.9	15.3
Ngakarimojong	11.3	26	32.3
Leb-Acholi	4.8	10.7	13.7
Leb-Lango	5.6	7.9	18.7
Lhukonzo	9.2	13.9	22.5
Luganda	9.4	13.7	13.2
Lugbarati	7.6	26.1	31.3
Lumasaaba	10.1	18.1	33
Lusoga	5.3	10.6	14.3
Runyankole/Rukiga	6.1	8.6	8.1
Runyoro/Rutooro	7.5	12.2	12.3

Note. The value for English is the calculated average for the individual English scores registered across all 11 local languages speaking areas.

Adapted from Achievement of Learners in Early Grade Reading in Selected Districts of Uganda: End line Report, by UNEB (2018, pp. 37–41, 90–94, and 100–104).

Overall, UTSEP had a positive impact on the reading achievements of learners; however, the effect was also small in absolute values. Although learners that received the program activities performed better than those who did not, only 27.5% and 10.9% could read above the benchmark of 20 wpm in local languages and English, respectively. Yet, the standard for Oral Reading frequency is 60 wpm for P3 students. Also, the average percentage of learners who could answer correctly one or more comprehension questions in the local language and English was low at 32.1% and 11%.

According to Global Partnership for Education [GPE] (2020), UTSEP 2015–2020 achieved limited progress in improving learning outcomes in both literacy and math. They point out that NAPE results showed that learning outcomes from 2011 to 2014 improved but deteriorated between 2015 and 2018. They observe that results from Uwezo show no progress in literacy and numeracy between 2011 and 2018. In addition, regional data comparing learning outcomes in Uganda to those of Kenya and Tanzania shows Uganda performed significantly worse.

Discussion

The programs achieved limited improvements in reading for both English and the local languages. This effect supports Piper and Miksic (2011) argument that more local language instruction does not automatically improve reading in either local languages or English. The investment in teacher's training and teaching materials also did not produce the expected effect noted by Chakera et al. (2020), who observed both to increase the effectiveness of pedagogical reforms. Instead, it confirms that government policies are directed more towards increasing inputs and less on the educational processes that ensure inputs translate into children's learning (Uwezo, 2015). Boosting reading in Uganda, therefore, lies beyond changing content and how it is delivered in classrooms because a new curriculum and local language instruction cannot compensate for poor education quality (Trudell, 2016).

Obstacles to Effective Educational Reform in Uganda

In this section, we discuss the main barriers to the successful implementation of pedagogical interventions. We also offer recommendations to address them. We build on Altinyelken (2010) assertion that pedagogical reform can only be successful through an approach that identifies what needs to be changed, the conditions necessary for successful implementation, and adequate provision of those conditions, and they include:

Early Childhood Education (ECE)

According to UNICEF (2019), children who attend quality preschool programs start primary school with a solid foundation for learning; they have already developed strong social skills, larger vocabularies, better numbers’ sense, curiosity to learn more, and are also more likely to stay in school. Preprimary education also helps children to build the resilience to cope with traumatic and stressful school situations. It also spares education systems the “catch-up” efforts and resources needed to address inefficiencies such as over-enrolment in the early grades, repetition, and low completion rates. Uwezo (2015) also notes that ECE prepares children to enter primary school at the correct age of 6. They found that 63% of children aged six who had attended ECE were in P1; 12 percentile points more than those that had not, 51%. Also, P3 pupils who had received ECE were almost three times (25%) more likely to read a P2 level story than those who did not (8%).

Children in Uganda enroll to grade 1 already behind and underdeveloped cognitively, socially, emotionally, and not school-ready. Many are under or overage and are experiencing the school environment for the very first time. They can barely write and are always complete non-readers, yet, the primary curriculum design does not address such basic-learning deficiencies, and primary teachers cannot deliver ECE. High teacher-student ratios exacerbate this challenge as they make teachers unable to offer the individualized attention children receive at ECE facilities. These challenges block the effective implementation of new curriculum content and pedagogy in the classrooms.

It is, therefore, imperative to acknowledge the consequences of the inequity in ECE in Uganda to revise ECE policies. However, providing universal access to ECE should not be prioritized over quality, as was the case for Universal Primary Education. The framework for universal preprimary education should integrate quality and access simultaneously (Spier et al., 2017).

School Improvement

The ineffectiveness of public primary schools in Uganda is due to a “sea of challenges” noted by Baines (2019). Schools are overwhelmed by enrolment that results in overcrowded classes. Teachers’ absenteeism is high due to low motivation, ineffective management, and a general lack of accountability. Head teachers lack proper training and are not under pressure to perform since the blame for schools’ underperformance lies on the government. They also have a very restricted budget over which they have little discretion. There is a general lack of recognition of how 'bad' the schools are what good schools should be. This environment undermines the effective delivery of improvement programs.

School effectiveness should focus on the entire school as the unit of change rather than its constituting parts, such as teachers, school committees, or school supervisors. These should be developed simultaneously in the schools’ context because they are not components operating in independent silos. The improvement framework should embrace and integrate four approaches, including:

increasing accountability in the school leadership systems,

creating a capable teaching force,

ensuring high time-in-school/contact time, and

increasing school autonomy; by making schools able to stand on their own feet, manage their development, and take responsibility for their performance (Baines, 2019).

Teacher Performance: Training, Motivation, and Accountability

Teachers are at the front line of delivering classroom interventions; therefore, their performance largely determines the success of educational reforms. Teacher performance is measured through improved children's learning and will only significantly improve if all aspects affecting that performance are improved (Martin, 2018). Figure 5 shows the cycle of factors that must be completed to increase teacher performance successfully.

Figure 5.

The cycle of continual improvement of teacher performance. Note. Adapted from UNICEF Think Piece Series: Teacher Performance by Martin (2018, p. 2).

Unfortunately, efforts to improve teacher effectiveness in Uganda have focused on one component of the cycle, professional development, while assuming that more and more training will produce better teachers without looking at the drivers that make them apply what they have learned. Yet, training teachers is just one of the complex factors affecting the teacher attitude and the behaviors that translate into learning. Moreover, interventions focus on short and remedial in-service training instead of the initial teacher training at PTCs. Notwithstanding the importance of in-service training, it is insufficient to deliver complex reform practices and methodology to teachers. There is, therefore, a need for a responsibility and accountability system aligned to clear performance penalties and rewards that will motivate teachers to deliver the desired CCP in Ugandan classrooms (Martin, 2018).

Conclusion

A large body of evidence from developed countries supports pedagogical reform as the investment priority to effectively enhance learning; however, the limited impact of pedagogical interventions on learning in Sub Saharan Africa, including the widely adopted mother-tongue instruction approach, is proof that new pedagogy is not the “panacea” to the learning crisis in Africa.

Only changing the content and pedagogy cannot enhance the quality of education without establishing the proper systems to ensure the introduction and appropriate implementation of both in the classrooms. Although a new outcome-based curriculum delivered in a familiar language will result in better learning, it comes with unfamiliar and more complicated methods to implement. Introducing it to a system with deep-rooted weaknesses and faults such as poor administration, high teacher and learner absenteeism, crowded classes, low teacher competence, and low motivation only adds more burden to an already strained system. We need, therefore, to ask: “if the education system has failed to deliver the familiar, how can it deliver the unfamiliar?” Investment priorities to improve literacy should thus consider that improvement in classroom practice is only possible if other aspects of education are well functioning at the different levels of the system; at parents, children, teachers, schools, district, and national level.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the authors and organizations that reported the information used to create this paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

George Wilson Ssenkande

Dinah Achola

Notes

Author Biographies

George Wilson Ssenkande is a fellow of Teach For Uganda. A trained environmentalist and social worker with a Bachelors of Science in Conservation Forestry and Products Technology from Makerere University and a Certificate in Child Protection from HavardX. He is a writer that has featured in major newspapers in Uganda with messages on critical educational issues. He works to instigate civic-driven policy change through writing to spark public debate.

Patrick Mugyenyi is a fellow of Teach For Uganda. He holds a bachelor's degree in human resource management. He cofounded Usikate Tama and MiAgro shoppers. He is a believer in tailor-made policies to change the education space for a better Uganda.

Dinah Achola is a graduate of Business Computing from Makerere University, a fellow of Teach For Uganda, and doubles as a Huduma Fellow, at Léo Africa Institute. She values honesty, truth, and fairness to foster equality and sustainable development.

References

Akello

D. L.

Timmerman

Namusisi

(2015). Teaching reading and writing in the local language using the child-centered pedagogy in Uganda. Language and Education, 30(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1106553

Altinyelken

H. K.

(2010). Pedagogical renewal in sub-Saharan Africa: The case of Uganda. Comparative Education, 46(2), 150–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050061003775454

Altinyelken

H. K.

Moorcroft

van der Draai

(2014). The dilemmas and complexities of implementing language-in-education policies: Perspectives from urban and rural contexts in Uganda. International Journal of Educational Development, 36, 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2013.11.001

Baines

(2019). UNICEF Think Piece Series: School improvement. UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office. https://www.unicef.org/esaro/EducationThinkPieces_8_SchoolImprovement.pdf

Bashir

Lockheed

Ninan

Tan

J.-P.

(2018). Facing forward: Schooling for learning in Africa. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1260-6

Brossard

Cardoso

Kamei

Mishra

Mizunoya

Reuge

(2020). Parental engagement in children’s learning (No. 09). UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti.

Chakera

Haffner

Harrop

(2020). Structured pedagogy: For real-time equitable improvements in learning outcomes (working paper 2020 version 02). UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa Region.

Conn

(2014). Identifying effective education interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-analysis of rigorous impact evaluations. [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Columbia University.

Damon

Glewwe

Wisniewski

Sun

(2016). Education in developing countries: What policies and programs affect learning and time in school? (No. 2). Expertgruppen för biståndsanalys (EBA). https://www.eba.se

10.

Global Partnership for Education (GPE) (2020). Summative evaluation of GPE’s country-level support to education (Batch 5, Country 19: Uganda). Universalia Management Group.

11.

Graham

Kelly

(2018). How effective are early grade reading interventions? A review of the evidence (Policy Research Working Paper No. 8292). Education Global Practice Group.

12.

Martin

(2018). UNICEF think piece series: Teacher performance. UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office. https://www.unicef.org/esaro/EducationThinkPieces_4_TeacherPerformance.pdf

13.

Ministry of Education and Sports (2020). Uganda teacher and school effectiveness project: Implementation Completion Report 2015–2020. Government of Uganda.

14.

National Planning Authority (2018a). Comprehensive evaluation of the Universal Primary Education (UPE) Policy: Education modelling and forecasting (Thematic Report 6).

15.

National Planning Authority (2018b). Comprehensive evaluation of the Universal Primary Education (UPE) Policy: Efficacy of the primary school curriculum in supporting the realization of UPE (Thematic Report 2).

16.

National Planning Authority (2018c). Comprehensive evaluation of the Universal Primary Education (UPE) Policy: Policy, legal, regulatory and institutional framework (Thematic Report 1).

17.

NORC at the University of Chicago (2016b). USAID/Uganda performance and impact evaluation for literacy achievement and retention activity (LARA) quarterly performance report FY2016, third & fourth quarter report April – September 2016. United States Agency for International Development.

18.

NORC at the University of Chicago (2017a). Performance & Impact Evaluation (P&IE) Of The USAID/Uganda School Health and Reading Program: Result 1 School Level Interventions Impact Evaluation – Final Report. United States Agency for International Development.

19.

NORC at the University of Chicago (2017b). USAID/Uganda performance and impact evaluation for literacy achievement and retention activity (LARA) Baseline Data Report. United States Agency for International Development.

20.

NORC at the University of Chicago (2020). Uganda performance and impact evaluation for literacy achievement and retention activity (Lara) Quarterly Performance Report Fy2020, Third Quarter Report April – June 2020. United States Agency for International Development.

21.

Piper

Miksic

(2011). Mother tongue and reading: Using early grade reading assessments to investigate language-of-instruction policy in East Africa [E-book]. In The early grade reading assessment: Applications and interventions to improve basic literacy (pp. 139–182). RTI Press. https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2011.bk.0007.1109.5

22.

Snilstveit

Stevenson

Phillips

Vojtkova

Gallagher

Schmidt

Jobse

Geelen

Pastorello

M. G.

(2015). Interventions for improving learning outcomes and access to education in low and middle-income countries (Systematic Review 24). International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).

23.

Spier

Oburu

Yoshikawa

(2017). UNICEF think piece series: Pre-primary EDUCATION. https://www.unicef.org/esa/documents/education-think-piece-2-pre-primary-education .

24.

Ssentanda

M. E.

(2014). The challenges of teaching reading in Uganda: Curriculum guidelines and language policy viewed from the classroom. Apples: Journal of Applied Language Studies, 8(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4880.7848

25.

Tembe

Norton

(2008). Promoting local languages in Ugandan primary schools: The community as stakeholder. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(1), 33–60. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.65.1.33

26.

The National Opinion Research Center [NORC] at the University of Chicago (2016a). Performance & impact evaluation (P&IE final performance evaluation: School health and reading program (SHRP). United States Agency for International Development.

27.

Trudell

(2016). The impact of language policy and practice on children’s learning: Evidence from Eastern and Southern Africa. UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office.

28.

Uganda National Examinations Board (2018). The achievement of learners in early grade reading in selected districts of Uganda: Endline Report .

29.

UNICEF (2017). The impact of language policy and practice on children’s learning: Evidence from Eastern and Southern Africa (Uganda Country Review).

30.

UNICEF (2019). A world ready to learn: Prioritizing quality early childhood education (Global Report).

31.

United States Agency for International Development (2018). USAID Education Policy .

32.

Uwezo (2015). Are our children learning? Five Stories on the State of Education in Uganda in 2015 and Beyond. Twaweza East Africa.

33.

Uwezo (2019). Are our children learning? Uwezo Uganda Eighth Learning Assessment Report. Twaweza East Africa.

34.

Wagner

D. A.

Murphy

K. M.

Korne

H. D.

(2012). Learning first: A research agenda for improving learning in low-income countries. (Working Paper 7). Center for Universal Education at Brookings.

35.

Ward

Penny

Read

(2006). Education Reform in Uganda – 1997 to 2004. Reflections on policy, partnership, strategy and implementation (No. 60). Department For International Development.

Improving Literacy in Uganda: Why Pedagogical Reforms and Intervention Programs are Underperforming

Abstract

Keywords

Improving Literacy in Uganda

Background and Context

Improving Learning in Africa: What Works?

Pedagogical Reforms in Uganda

The Thematic Curriculum and the Local Language Policy

Literacy Programs in Uganda

The USAID/Uganda School Health and Reading Program (SHRP)

Program Background

Achievements (2016) 5

Literacy Achievement and Retention Activity (LARA)

Program Background

Uganda Teacher and School Effectiveness Project (UTSEP)

Project Background

Summary of Project Achievements

Discussion

Obstacles to Effective Educational Reform in Uganda

Early Childhood Education (ECE)

School Improvement

Teacher Performance: Training, Motivation, and Accountability

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Notes

Author Biographies

References

Achievements (2016)⁵