Can Uganda’s new science pilot make practical lessons routine?

On 10 November 2026, UNESCO reported that a workshop convened by Uganda’s Ministry of Education and Sports had validated five documents for a pilot in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education. They cover skills needs, existing laboratories, materials intended to make science teaching more equitable, guidelines for shared teaching hubs and criteria for choosing pilot schools. The decision marks a step towards a trial; the announcement does not name the schools or say that laboratories have been equipped. It does give Uganda a chance to test a question that has followed earlier reforms: what has to change in a school for a pupil to carry out an experiment, rather than read about one or watch someone else do it? ^{[1] [2]}

The five documents deal with different decisions. An assessment of existing laboratories tells officials what they are starting with. Rules for managing and maintaining equipment can help a school keep it usable. A pilot roadmap determines where the ministry can try those arrangements before extending them. UNESCO says the workshop considered evidence from 16 schools, with accounts of more practical work in some classrooms alongside reports of overcrowding and too few laboratory technicians. The announcement does not establish how those schools were selected, so the findings should guide questions for the pilot rather than serve as national estimates of how often those barriers occur. ^[1]

Those problems have a history in Uganda’s expansion of secondary education. The Uganda National Council for Science and Technology’s 2012 report described schools that lacked laboratories or rarely ran practical lessons. Its evidence included earlier inspection and sector reports; it cannot tell us what proportion of schools lack equipment today. The report did, however, identify a distinction that still matters: having a laboratory on an inventory does not mean students use it regularly. For a pupil, the difference depends on whether supplies are available, whether someone can prepare the space and whether the timetable allows the class to use it. ^{[1] [3]}

The photograph accompanying this essay shows one historical response. In March 2013, The African Science Truck Experience had a mobile teaching laboratory in Lwengo District. Its planning document describes colleagues in Uganda and Britain mapping schools and using information gathered in 2012 to decide which ones the van should visit. A van could bring equipment to schools that could not each maintain a complete laboratory. Its usefulness would also depend on how often it could return and whether what it brought fitted the lessons teachers had planned. The photograph records the vehicle, not the frequency of visits or their effects on learning. It predates the current pilot and does not depict one of the proposed hubs. ^{[4] [5]}

The proposal for regional hubs revisits part of the same problem at a different scale. A fixed hub might make specialised equipment and technical support available to several schools, while a mobile service takes equipment to the schools themselves. Each puts different costs on the institutions and pupils involved. For a shared site, the trip and the time away from school are part of the cost of a lesson; for equipment that travels, running and maintaining the service are part of it. The new guidelines address laboratory management and maintenance. The pilot can show whether the institution operating a hub and the schools meant to use it can make the arrangement work repeatedly, including for pupils who need support to travel or participate. ^{[1] [4]}

Uganda has also invested in teachers’ ability to use what schools already have. Its Secondary Science and Mathematics Teachers’ programme, supported by Japan, ran several phases. A 2017 joint evaluation of the third phase described efforts to move professional development from regional workshops into schools, including teachers studying and discussing lessons together. The evaluators found examples of collaboration and adaptation. They also reported that the project had not met its targets for lesson observation, learner participation and assessed learning at the time of the evaluation. A school can take up a new teaching practice without immediately registering gains across every measure. Keeping the measures separate lets an education ministry see where support is working and where more is needed. ^{[3] [6]}

The curriculum itself changed in the next period. Uganda’s National Curriculum Development Centre published its framework in 2019 and began phasing it into lower secondary schools in 2020. It put greater weight on applying knowledge, including through activities pupils do themselves, and on assessing how well pupils can use what they know. The centre describes using the network of regional science and mathematics training centres for teacher preparation. That sequence makes the current exercise easier to place: a new laboratory procedure does not introduce the curriculum; it is one possible way to give teachers and pupils a better chance to carry out a curriculum already in use. It also means the pilot needs to be judged against what lessons and examinations ask pupils to do. ^{[1] [7] [8]}

The experience of teachers after the rollout helps explain why support cannot end with training. A paper by Mercy Barasa Chemutai, Proscovia Namubiru Ssentamu, John K. Chang’ach and Susan Kurgat drew on responses from 383 teachers in 40 selected government-aided secondary schools in Uganda’s central sub-region. The authors found considerable support for the reform, alongside concerns about materials, information and the work of putting it into practice. This is evidence about teachers’ reported experiences in the schools studied; it does not measure learning outcomes or represent every district. It does show why an implementation report needs to hear from the people organising lessons, rather than counting the delivery of guides as evidence that the intended work took place. ^{[8] [9]}

Assessment is where the difference becomes visible. If a school can schedule practical work only just before a national exam, students have fewer chances to learn from results that go wrong and to try again. The curriculum asks pupils to apply knowledge, which takes repeated opportunities rather than a single demonstration. In the teacher study, concerns about implementation included how to assess learning under the new system. The ministry can use the pilot to see whether the support on offer helps schools assess pupils during ordinary lessons as well as prepare them for exams. ^{[3] [7] [9]}

The November workshop also addressed who gets to take part in practical work. UNESCO reports that participants discussed distinct barriers for girls and learners with disabilities and endorsed materials that address gender stereotypes. The existence of a lesson plan does not establish that everyone can use the room, handle equipment or take a turn leading an experiment. Shared facilities can widen access if schools can get pupils there and the activities are designed for them. They can also concentrate scarce opportunities if the first schools chosen are already best placed to use them. The pilot selection criteria matter because they will determine which of these circumstances the ministry gets to observe. ^{[1] [7] [9]}

The international financing is real, but its scope is wider than Uganda. UNESCO’s project records identify a Chinese contribution of US$3 million for work covering Uganda, Mali, Samoa and the Solomon Islands. The portal’s benchmark dated 30 June 2026 recorded US$352,047 in incurred expenditure across the project. Neither figure is a Uganda-only allocation or a count of laboratory purchases. UNESCO had already reported a ministry-led workshop in Pakwach in June 2025 to review a situational report with Ugandan institutions. Together the records show an external contribution supporting a process led by the Ugandan education ministry, moving from assessment towards pilot design. They do not show how each school will pay for recurring supplies and technical staff once a pilot ends. ^{[1] [2] [10]}

The earlier experience gives some practical ways to judge the next stage. Records of equipment arriving at schools would show what was delivered, but records of timetabled and completed practical lessons would show whether pupils used it. Teachers’ accounts can explain whether the space and materials fitted the syllabus. Records of repairs and replacement supplies can show whether the equipment was kept in service. Those measures would make it possible to separate the effect of a well-equipped site from the ability of different schools to use it. They would also let districts tell the ministry when a change in transport, staffing or scheduling might matter more than another purchase. ^{[3] [6] [8] [9]}

An allocation for a lab is also a decision about whose time and labour count. A technician needs hours to prepare equipment and maintain it. A teacher planning a practical lesson needs time to organise groups and assess their work. When schools lack staff or space, those tasks do not disappear; teachers and pupils have to absorb them, or the lesson changes. The published research and the workshop’s account both show why it would be misleading to judge the pilot on the strength of a new set of materials alone. A system that asks for practical learning has to provide the time and support that make it routine. ^{[1] [3] [9]}