See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283641062

Universal Secondary Education (USE) in

Uganda: blessing or curse? The impact of USE
on educational attainment a....

Chapter · January 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1377.2241

CITATIONS READS

0 6,139

2 authors, including:

Kristof Titeca
University of Antwerp
59 PUBLICATIONS 403 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kristof Titeca on 10 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Article to be cited as: Huylebroeck, Lisa and Kristof Titeca
‘Universal Secondary Education (USE) in Uganda: blessing or curse?
The impact of USE on educational attainment and performance’. In:
Reyntjens, F., Vandeginste, S. and M. Verpoorten (eds.) L’Afrique
des Grands Lacs: Annuaire 2014-2015. Antwerp: University Press
Antwerp, pp.349-372.

UNIVERSAL SECONDARY EDUCATION IN UGANDA:

BLESSING OR CURSE? THE IMPACT OF USE ON
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND PERFORMANCE.

by Lisa Huylebroeck and Kristof Titeca

Abstract
In follow-up to Universal Primary Education (UPE), the Government of Uganda
introduced in 2007 its Universal Secondary Education (USE) policy in order to increase
access to quality secondary education for economically vulnerable families. While the effects
of UPE have been analysed extensively, this is not the case for USE. By using quantitative
and qualitative data, this paper aims to explore the impact of USE on educational attainment
and performance. The paper shows that the impact of USE is mixed, as the increase in
educational attainment remained slow and educational performance declined after the
implementation of USE. It is explained how USE plays a primarily political role, because of
which the actual improvement of service delivery is secondary. This leads to a situation in
which congested classrooms and reduced teacher compensation are key-elements, all
negatively affecting motivation of the key-actors involved, and ultimately influencing
educational performance. Although the USE program was designed with co-responsibility of
parents, schools and government in mind , it was implemented without sufficient attention to
local school realities. Consequently, the intention of increasing access to quality education
through USE has not been achieved to date.

1. Introduction

In 2007 the Government of Uganda introduced its ‘Universal Post Primary

Education and Training policy’, commonly known as Universal Secondary
Education (USE), to increase access to secondary education for
economically vulnerable families and communities.1 Uganda was one of the
first African countries to implement Universal Primary Education (UPE) in

1
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS, “A Comprehensive Report on Universal Post Primary
Education & Training (UPPET/USE) & Universal Post O-Level Education & Training
(UPOLET) National Headcount Exercise 2013”, Kampala, Education Planning and Policy
Analysis Department, 2013.
the 1990s2 and is now the first country in sub-Saharan Africa to embark on
Universal Secondary Education.3 A number of reasons could be highlighted
for this4, all of which are to do with demands from specific interest groups.
First, there was the demand of parents, whose children had successfully
completed primary education under UPE, and who started to demand low-
cost access to secondary education. Second, businesses were looking for a
workforce that was more highly educated. Third, the political victory of the
incumbent President Museveni in the 1996 electoral campaign was mainly
attributed to his promise of free primary education.5 Thus, during the 2006
national elections, the President reminded the voters of the success of UPE
and promised a continuation of ‘free’ education in secondary schools. All of
these factors, and interest groups, led to the introduction of the USE policy,
which was rolled out throughout the country.
What has been the impact of these free education policies in the country?
Studies on the impact of the Universal Primary Education policy6 have
highlighted how educational attainment7 increased whereas the quality of
education declined8. Concretely, it has been shown how UPE had generally

2
NISHIMURA, M., YAMANO, T., SASAOKA, Y., “Impacts of the universal primary
education policy on educational attainment and private costs in rural Uganda”, International
Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 28, 2008, pp. 161-175.
3
CHAPMAN, D. W., BURTON, L., WERNER, J., “Universal secondary education in
Uganda: the head teachers’ dilemma”, International Journal of Educational Development,
Vol. 30, No. 1, 2010, pp. 77-82. DEJAEGHERE, J.G., WILLIAMS, R., KYEYUNE, R.,
“Ugandan secondary school head teachers’ efficacy: What kind of training for whom?”,
International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 29, 2009, pp. 312–320.
4
CHAPMAN, D. W., BURTON, L., WERNER, J., op. cit., pp. 77-82.
5
STASAVAGE, D., “The role of democracy in Uganda’s move to universal primary
education”, Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2005, pp. 53-73.
6
DEININGER, K., “Does cost of schooling affect enrolment by the poor? Universal primary
education in Uganda”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2003, pp. 291-305.
LINCOVE, J.A., “The influence of price on school enrolment under Uganda’s policy of free
primary education”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 31, No. 5, 2012, pp. 799-811.
McGEE, R., “Meeting the international poverty targets in Uganda: halving poverty and
achieving universal primary education”, Development Policy Review, Vol. 18, 2000, pp. 85-
106. PRINSEN, G., TITECA, K., “Uganda’s decentralised primary education: musical chairs
and inverted elite capture in school management committees”, Public Administration and
Development, Vol. 28, 2008, pp. 149-164. STASAVAGE, D., op. cit., pp. 53-73. ZUZEA,
T. L., LEIBBRANDT, M., “Free education and social inequality in Ugandan primary schools:
a step backward or a step in the right direction?”, International Journal of Educational
Development, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2011, pp. 169-178.
7
Educational attainment includes school enrolment, completion rates, dropouts and
attendance. It gives an idea of how many students are starting, going through and finishing
their education. Educational performance refers to the achievement levels of the students and
shows how they are performing in the different subjects. NISHIMURA, M. YAMANO, T.,
SASAOKA, Y, op. cit., p. 162
8
DEININGER, K., op. cit., pp. 291-305. LINCOVE, J. A., op. cit., pp. 799-811.
NISHIMURA, M., YAMANO, T., SASAOKA, Y., op. cit., pp. 161-175.
had a positive impact on enrolment rates: they increased from 53.1% in 1990
to 94.2% in 1998.9 It is important to note that, while previous research10
shows a positive impact on completion rates, these rates remain low: Data
based on the Ugandan bureau of statistics and Uganda Ministry of Education
show that in 2003, only about 22% of the students who entered the schooling
system at the start of the UPE had reached P7 in 2003. Further data showed a
slight improvement, but not much: in 2009, the probability of reaching P7
was about 34%.11 However, World Bank data show a different picture: these
data show how in 2009, 2011 and 2013 the completion rates were 57, 53 and
54% respectively.12 In any case, both of the previous datasets are below the
2008 Sub-Saharan average of 67%, and the percentages of Tanzania and
Kenya, which are at 83% and 72% respectively.13
The current literature on USE does not provide insights into these dynamics:
it mainly focuses on the impact of USE on secondary school enrolments14,
the impact of USE on teachers and moonlighting activities15 and the
importance of involving headteachers in policies such as USE16. Both studies
on moonlighting indicate that USE has increased the number of teaching and
non-teaching jobs secondary school teachers take on to ensure personal
financial stability, and thus contributed to problems of poor service-
delivery17 such as higher teacher absenteeism18. Although these studies on
USE provide important insights on specific dynamics, limited analysis has
been done on the actual impact of USE on educational attainment and
performance in secondary schools, which is a gap this article wants to
address. In other words, how has USE impacted on educational attainment
and performance, and what are the factors explaining this?

9
McGEE, R., op. cit., p. 91.
10
NISHIMURA, M., YAMANO, T., SASAOKA, Y., op. cit.
11
TAMUSUZA, A., “Leaving school early: the quest for Universal Primary Education in
Uganda”, Journal Statistique Africain, No. 13, 2013, pp. 110-151.
12
World Bank education statistics: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?
source=education-statistics-~-all-indicators, retrieved on 05 July 2015.
13
TAMUSUZA, A., op. cit.
14
ASANKHA, P., TAKASHI, Y., “Impacts of Universal Secondary Education policy on
secondary school enrolments in Uganda”, Journal of Accounting, Finance and Economics,
Vol. 1, No. 1, 2011, pp. 16-30.
15
“Moonlighting activities” refers to the fact that teachers get involved in several teaching
and non-teaching jobs to ensure personal financial stability. MOLYNEAUX, K. J., “Uganda’s
Universal Secondary Education Policy and its Effect on ‘Empowered’ Women: how reduced
income and moonlighting activities differentially impact male and female teachers”, Research
in Comparative and International Education, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2011, pp. 62-78. URWICK, J.,
KISA, S., “Science teacher shortage and the moonlighting culture: The pathology of the
teacher labour market in Uganda”, International Journal of Educational Development, 2013.
16
CHAPMAN, D. W., BURTON, L., WERNER, J., op. cit., pp. 77-82.
17
URWICK, J., KISA, S., op. cit.
18
MOLYNEAUX, K. J., op. cit., pp. 62-78.
In order to answer the above questions, this study collected primary
qualitative data through field research in Uganda, as well as secondary
quantitative data, which mainly came from national databases and reports
managed by the Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES). The most
important reports for this study are the MoES Education and Sports Sector
Fact Sheet 2000-2013, the National USE/ Universal Post Primary Education
& Training (UPPET) and UPOLET (Universal Post O-Level Education &
Training) Headcount 2013 and the Education Abstract.19 Qualitative data
were collected during field research from August to October 2014 in Masaka
and Kampala by the first author. During this research period, semi-structured
interviews were conducted with a variety of actors, both at the local and
national level, such as students, teachers, (Deputy) Head Teachers, Directors
of Studies, a school founder at school level (in both USE and non-USE
schools), civil servants (from the local and national government), donor
representatives, teacher union representatives and NGO actors. In addition to
interviews, observation and document analysis were used to collect data.

2. Uganda’s education system and the USE policy

The mission statement of the Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) in

Uganda is “to provide for, support, guide and co-ordinate, regulate, and
promote quality education and sports to all persons in Uganda for national
integration, individual and national development”20. In order to do so, the
MoES not only depends on its own departments but has also partnered up
with the private sector, under the Public Private Partnership or PPP system.21
Accordingly, secondary education is provided by both private and public
schools.
More specifically, the Education Act of 200822 categorizes education
institutions as government, government-aided or private. The responsibilities
of the Government of Uganda towards government and government-aided
schools include: “ensuring that trained teachers are deployed; paying salaries
and allowances to teachers; [...]; providing educational materials and other
capital development inputs; providing national selection and admission

19
The main limitations of these nationally collected data are the poor record keeping by
education institutions at various levels, their low response rate and the lack of commitment
from some district education officers and Head Teachers. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND
SPORTS, “Education Abstract 2013”, Kampala, Education Planning and Policy Analysis
Department, 2013.
20
Ibid., p. 1.
21
Ibid.
22
“The Education (pre-primary, primary and post-primary) Act, 2008”, Acts Supplement No.
8, The Uganda Gazette, vol. CI, No. 44, 29th August, 2008, p. 13.
guidelines for all pupils or students to be enrolled”23, whereas in private
institutions, the Government mainly ensures that “private education
institutions conform to the rules and regulations governing the provision of
education services in Uganda”24. Since the Education Act does not clearly
distinguish government from government-aided schools, the term
‘government schools’ will from now on be used to indicate both types of
schools.
While primary education has been decentralized25, the national government
remains largely responsible for secondary education, by deploying teachers
and head teachers26, placing students and organising national examinations.27
Originally one had to pass the end of the year exams to be promoted to the
next class.28 However, in primary schools, the government installed a policy
of automatic promotion, whereby students can proceed to the next class
regardless of their performance.29 Our own findings30 suggest that this policy
has also been adopted by USE schools, in which the students automatically
proceed to the following year. To proceed to the next level, that is from
primary to secondary, from O-level to A-level and graduating from A-
level31, one needs to pass the national exams administered by the Uganda
National Examination Board or UNEB.32
The Universal Secondary Education program was designed with the co-
responsibility of parents, schools and government in mind to provide the
necessary support, materials and facilities to effectively educate the children
in secondary schools. This way parents remained responsible for providing
accommodation, lunch, uniforms, medical care and scholastic materials33,
whereas the government became in charge of paying the school fees.

23
Ibid., p. 14.
24
Ibid., p. 13.
25
PRINSEN, G., TITECA, K., op. cit., pp. 149-164.
26
The principals or head masters of secondary schools are called “head teachers” in Uganda.
27
DEJAEGHERE, J. G., WILLIAMS, R., KYEYUNE, R., op. cit., pp. 312–320.
28
KASIRYE, I., op. cit.
29
TEACHERS INITIATIVE IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA [TISSA], “Teacher issues in Uganda: A
diagnosis for a shared vision on issues and the designing of a feasible, indigenous and
effective teachers’ policy”, UNESCO and Ministry of Education and Sports, 2013.
30
For example, one of the employees at a Ugandan NGO explains in an interview on 29
September 2014 that automatic promotion depends on the foundation of the school. Schools
founded by the Church rely less on government policies, these schools will not have
automatic promotion. In city schools, there is automatic promotion.
31
Secondary education is in itself divided into two levels: ordinary level or O-level,
comprising of senior one to four (S1-S4) and advanced level or A-level consisting of senior
five and six (S5-S6). MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS, op. cit. In other words, a grade in
secondary schools in Uganda is indicated by S (for “senior”) followed by the year.
32
KASIRYE, I., op. cit.
33
ASANKHA, P., TAKASHI, Y., op. cit., pp. 16-30. CHAPMAN, D. W., BURTON, L.,
WERNER, J., op. cit., pp. 77-82.
More specifically, the main role of the government under USE has been to
subsidize costs in secondary schools by “paying school fees, providing
textbooks and other instructional materials for both students and teachers,
meeting the costs of co-curricular activities, school administration and
maintenance”.34 It is important to note here that the USE program, in
contrast to UPE, is not universal – the program only applies to the O-level,
that is senior one to senior four, and not to A-level.35 Moreover, USE was
not implemented in all schools but only those schools, both government and
private, which had tuition fees under a certain threshold36 so it would be
financially viable for the government to fund37. These are, of course, first
nuances to the ‘universal’ character of the USE policy, which Chapman et
al.38 describe as: “Neither universal nor free”. The next sections will further
nuance the universal character of this policy.

3. Educational attainment and performance

3.1. Enrolment in USE schools

What has been the effect of USE on enrolment39? Did the subsidizing of
school costs really increase the enrolment numbers? The statistics do in fact
suggest so. As can be seen in Figure 1 below, total enrolment in secondary
schools rapidly increased in the years following the implementation. More
specifically, enrolment in USE schools has continuously increased since its
implementation, whereas enrolment in non-USE schools has been declining
since 2006. When only considering USE enrolment into senior one (S1), the
number continuously increased from 161,396 in 2007 to 251,040 in 2013.40
The massive increase in enrolment was confirmed by the (deputy)

34
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS, “A Comprehensive Report…”, op. cit., p. 1.
35
Ibid.
36
According to a deputy town clerk (interview, Masaka, 28 August 2014), the threshold at the
time USE was implemented was < 70,000 UShs; [to get a better indication of the amount:]
many private schools charge around 800,000 UShs.
37
DEJAEGHERE, J. G., WILLIAMS, R., KYEYUNE, R., op. cit., pp. 312–320.
38
CHAPMAN, D. W., BURTON, L., WERNER, J., op. cit., p. 78.
39
According to the Ugandan Ministry of Education, enrolment refers to “those pupils who
were admitted/re-admitted and fully recorded in the school’s register at the beginning of the
first term. It includes all those pupils whose names appear on the school register (including
repeaters and those temporarily absent).” MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS, “Education
Abstract 2013”, op. cit., p. 83.
40
2009 and 2012 are an exception to this: In 2009 the decline in S1 intake was due to more
students failing the Primary Leaving Exam in 2008 compared to 2007, which resulted in a
lower number of students qualifying to enter secondary education. The decrease in 2012 was
attributed to the stabilization of the program as a result of increased supervision to combat
irregular reporting and admission practices. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS, “A
Comprehensive Report …”, op. cit.
headteachers in the majority of the USE schools visited. As one headteacher
argued: “The school received an increase in student enrolment. Without the
program, many would’ve stayed at home. In the past, there were many cases
of dropout from inability to pay fees. [...] The overall enrolment now is 450,
before it was 100.”41

< FIGURE 1 HERE >

There are, however, a number of caveats: First, this shift in enrolment is

partially due to the fact that some non-USE schools have joined the program
and that a number of new USE schools have been built.42 Second, an
important caveat is that enrolment data, as communicated by USE schools,
may actually not reflect the actual number of students. Since USE grants are
released per child, some schools report ghost students to increase their
funds.43 Moreover, the enrolment figures reported to the Ministry may also
lack accuracy as a result of poor record keeping in the majority of secondary
schools and a lack of involvement of education officers at local government
levels in national headcount exercises.44
Moreover, total enrolment only indicates how many people registered in
total, but does not portray whether or not percentage-wise more children are
going to secondary schools. In other words it does not depict the change in
actual access to secondary education. For example, as the Ugandan
population aged 0-14 also continued to rise over the years, the rise in
secondary education enrolment might therefore simply be explained due to
the rise of children of school-going age. Accordingly, it is more valuable to
look at the net enrolment rate (NER), which indicates the percentage of
Ugandan children of school-going age accessing secondary education, and
which is calculated as the ratio of children of the official secondary school
age enrolled in secondary education to all children (enrolled and not
enrolled) of that same age category.45 As a result the NER gives an
indication of how many children of a certain age category are not enrolled.
As depicted in Figure 2, Uganda is still performing below the sub-Saharan

41
Interview, Deputy Head Teacher, Kampala, 1 October 2014. Similar statements were made
by other head teachers, for example: “Enrolment is 3,105, an increase of around 100 students
since last year. There has been a continuous increase over the last years.” Interview, Deputy
Head Teacher, Kampala, 10 October 2014.
42
Data from the Ministry of Education and Sports indicate that since the inception of the
program the number of USE schools has increased by 664, from 1155 in 2007 to 1819 in
2013. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS, “Education and Sports Sector Fact Sheet 2000-
2013”, Kampala, 2013.
43
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS, “A Comprehensive Report …”, op. cit.
44
Ibid.
45
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS, “Education Abstract 2013”, op. cit.
Africa average with little indication of sustainable and sufficient
improvements in net enrolments, despite efforts to increase access to
secondary education through USE. Concretely, after a rapid increase of the
NER between 2005 and 2008 in Uganda, it stabilized and even slightly
decreased in 2012, whereas in sub-Saharan Africa, the NER has continued to
grow slowly but steadily from 2002 onwards. Thus, it seems that – contrary
to what one would expect – abolishing school fees under USE has not
contributed to sustained growth rates in net enrolment in Uganda nor to an
increase in access to secondary education above the sub-Saharan Africa
average. This comes as a surprise since, as explained in the introduction,
Uganda is often portrayed as a pioneer in implementing new educational
reforms to expand access in education, such as the universal primary
education and now also the universal secondary education.
< FIGURE 2 HERE >

3.2. Attendance in USE schools

Our field research within USE schools revealed two principal trends: On the
one hand, the attendance of students has become more regular, as they are
not sent back anymore due to the inability to pay fees. As a deputy head
teacher summarized: “The impact on attendance is positive: now parents can
afford to send their children to school. In fact attendance has become more
regular. [...] Interested learners have regular attendance, while in the past
intelligent, gifted learners would sometimes not be able to attend school
because of lack of money”46. On the other hand, taking away parents’
responsibility to pay fees seems to have decreased parents’ involvement in
their children’s education and this, in turn, negatively impacted student
attendance in USE schools. A number of school level actors expressed the
feeling that a number of students were now absent because the parents’
engagement had reduced. As a director of studies in a Kampala school
argued: “Because students are not paying, the parents do not feel it when
they do not attend school. Per stream you can find 10 students absent. Some
have small businesses at home. For others parents don’t care since they are
not paying.”47. A deputy head teacher argued how “USE increased stability.
There are few cases of absenteeism. Now the reason for students being
absent is the negligence of parents. Students have not yet attached value to
education as a result of the nature of the community, mainly because they
have created the habit of going fishing.”48 In other words, and as will be
explained in more detail below, parents have become less engaged in their

46
Interview, Deputy Head Teacher, Masaka, 10 September 2014.
47
Interview, Director of Studies, Kampala, 15 October 2014.
48
Interview, Deputy Head Teacher, Kampala, 1 October 2014.
children’s education and involvement in school, through which children
have become engaged in other activities.

3.3. Retaining students in USE schools

Another indicator for looking at the success of the USE program is the
completion rate, which the Ugandan Ministry of Education defines as the
“total number of pupils/students who registered for end of cycle exams
(primary, secondary or tertiary) regardless of age, expressed as a percentage
of the population at the official primary/secondary graduation age”.49 As
depicted in figure 3, the completion rate for all secondary schools, USE as
well as non-USE, grew from 16% in 2000 to 40% in 2013. As this growth
was continuous in the period before as well as after the implementation of
USE, there is therefore no clear indication that the USE policy influenced
the completion rate in secondary schools.
< FIGURE 3 HERE>

Our qualitative research brought out a mixed picture in this context. On the
one hand, our findings indicate that USE has positively influenced access
and dropout rates, and more particularly by abolishing school fees. As a head
girl summarized: “USE helps those who cannot have the ability to pay
school fees. It helps the parents see a future for their children. I suggest that
it stands there forever, for the younger ones to also get the chance to get
secondary education.”50 A headteacher added to this: “Since USE, there is a
decreased dropout because it is free education. Before, the paying of school
fees was the main reason [for dropouts]. There was also less monitoring.
Reasons now are early pregnancies and activities like boda-boda, sand
mining, forest activity [...] In A-level there is no government support so the
children run away and go finishing because they cannot pay school fees.
Problem for dropout from S2 to S3 is early pregnancies. [...]”51. On the other
hand, these quotes also highlight how dropouts are now particularly caused
by non-financial constraints, such as early pregnancies and the availability of
profitable alternative activities, as well as other financial constraints:
government funding does not cover fees for accommodation, lunch,
uniforms, medical care and scholastic materials52.

49
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS, “Education Abstract 2013”, op. cit., p. 82.
50
Interview, head girl, Kampala, 1 October 2014.
51
Interview, head teacher, Kampala, 1 October 2014.
52
ASANKHA, P., TAKASHI, Y., op. cit., pp. 16-30. CHAPMAN, D. W., BURTON, L.,
WERNER, J., op. cit., pp. 77-82. As another deputy head teacher argues: “[The main] reasons
[for dropouts] are some students are not able to meet the requirements [such as] school
uniform, [...], scholastic materials, sanitary pads for girls. Government does not pay for the
requirements.” (Interview, Deputy Head Teacher, Masaka, 10 September 2014). These
It is also worth highlighting the high opportunity costs of sending children of
poor households to school: particularly older children from poorer
households who attend school miss out on the opportunity to work and
maintain themselves and their family.53

3.4. Educational performance

What has been the impact of USE on educational performance? A good

indicator is the National Assessment of Progress in Education (NAPE),
which annually assesses the achievement levels of students in senior two
(S2) in Biology, Mathematics and English Language. This exercise is done
to supplement the information on performance obtained from the national
examinations and is used to identify critical areas in need of attention in
order to enhance educational quality.54 As shown in figure 4, performance in
the three subjects being tested in the NAPE has dramatically declined since
2008.
< FIGURE 4 HERE >

It is important to note that, as depicted in figure 5, the performance in USE

schools is substantially lower than in non-USE schools for the subjects
tested. All of this adds to a rather negative picture: In sum, we have shown
how the abolishment of school fees did not lead to the expected growth in
attainment and its impact on educational performance was particularly bad:
performance declined, particularly in USE schools. In the next section, we
will look in more detail at the factors which might explain this.
< FIGURE 5 HERE >

4. Factors influencing the performance of USE

findings are reflected in a study on dropouts by the Ministry of Education, which equally
highlights the financial and non-financial constraints poor communities continue to face, and
which remain unaddressed under the USE policy. More specifically, the study highlights early
pregnancies (in 59% of the schools), followed by parents transferring to other new areas (in
31% of the schools) and lack of interest in education by parents (29%). MINISTRY OF
EDUCATION AND SPORTS, “Dropout Study in Universal Secondary Education (USE)”,
Education Planning and Policy Analysis Department (Statistics Section), 2012.
53
A student summarizes this as “Some [students] get pregnant. Because of the influence of
money, many want to work. Some don’t have money. Some don’t want to go [to school
because], they want to fish.” (Interview, head boy, Kampala, 1 October 2014).
54
UGANDA NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS BOARD, “The Achievement of S2 Students in
Mathematics, English Language and Biology”, National Assessment of Progress in Education
report 2013, Kampala, 2013.
In looking at the factors which might influence the performance of USE, we
respectively focus on the budgetary reductions, congested classrooms and
low teacher morale, and the political role of free education policies.

4.1. Budgetary reductions

As mentioned before, under USE, the Government of Uganda is paying

tuition fees for a prescribed number of both public and private schools.
Moreover, under the Education Act of 200855 the Government is responsible
for providing learning and instructional materials, structural development,
and recruiting and deploying teacher and non-teaching staff in government
schools.
Generally, the key-actors question the government’s budgetary commitment
to its education policy. As a representative from the teachers union argued:
“Government public expenditure has not been focusing on recruiting
teachers, because education is not given the priority it should receive and
because of political capital. It is easier to pay for the votes, put money where
they can get votes, for example in campaigning for elections.”56. A deputy
head teacher summarized this in the following way: “The [USE] project is
underfunded, funding is inadequate [...] staffing is inadequate, infrastructure
is inadequate, there are too many USE schools so there is not enough budget
per school.”57 These statements are also reflected in Uganda’s budget:
although the total education expenditure slightly increased58, there has been
a decrease in the percentage of GDP allocated to education from 4.2% in
2003/4 to 3.3% in 2010/1159. In comparison with the average of 3.9% for
other low income countries60, a percentage of 3.3% is below average.61 In
other words, the government’s expenditure on education as a percentage of
GDP is declining and even dropping below the low income countries'
average.
In these circumstances, stakeholders at both government and school level are
struggling to keep up with the increased workload that came with USE and
often fail to provide quality service delivery in secondary education. As two
civil servants at the Ministry of Education explain:

55
The Education (pre-primary, primary and post-primary) Act of 2008, op. cit., p. 11.
56
Interview, Uganda National Teachers’ Union (UNATU) representative, Kampala, 17
October 2014.
57
Interview, deputy head teacher secondary school, 10 September 2014.
58
From about 968 billion UShs in 2003/4 to 1,283 billion UShs in 2010/11, according to
TEACHERS INITIATVE IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA, op. cit.
59
Ibid.
60
Countries with a GDP per capita below USD 800 (Ibid.).
61
Ibid.
 “With increased enrolment came many complications:
need for more classes, more teachers, more instructional
materials and need for more people in the department.
This in combination with increased workload, pressure
for teachers, science equipment, facilities in schools and
pressure on the budget itself. (...). Government has not
employed the required number of civil servants at the
department. The national budget is not enough, civil
servants are overstretched as you can see [pointing to the
long line of people waiting in the hallway].”62
“There are not enough inspectors, so the school-inspector
ratio is quite high. This has led to inadequate support
supervision to teachers, inadequate coverage; [as a result]
some schools are only visited once a year. There is
limited support to schools that require a lot of attention.
The workload has increased (…).. If you have to do
more, you expect to be paid more, but this is not yet
there, because of the cash limit of the government. Also
infrastructure and facilities are a big challenge. (...)
Schools require more teachers but because of inadequate
funds this is not done. So if you have no money, what to
do?”63
In other words, the education sector is not provided with the budget or
staffing necessary to accommodate the large increase in enrolment in USE
schools.64 As a result, civil servants, similarly to USE teachers, are
overstretched without being adequately compensated or supported. For USE
schools this means there are not enough funds for adequate staffing,
infrastructure and instructional materials.

4.2. Congested classrooms and low teacher morale

A major problem with the USE policy are large and congested classes;
something which was repeated several times throughout the interviews. As a
deputy head teacher summarized:
“In this school performance has worsened. The reasons
for this are the numbers: it is not easy for teachers to
capture the attention of more than 80 students per class.
62
Interview, Secondary Education Department Officer, Kampala, 23 October 2014.
63
Interview, Directorate of Education Standards Commissioner, Kampala, 23 October 2014.
64
As highlighted above, this is an absolute increase in enrolment, rather than a relative
increase: the net enrolment rates have started to decline in recent years, and are below average
in sub-Sahara Africa. As the net enrolments were not accompanied by sufficient budgetary
and infrastructure investments, this led to large frustrations among the relevant staff.
 The average teacher-student ratio is 1:85. One year ago
the reason was also lack of space. This is better now. It is
common in USE schools to conduct lessons in open
space but it is a challenge to keep the attention of the
students and it undermines their performance. The
admissions should be limited, we cannot keep admitting
everyone.”65
Large classes are often seen as negatively impacting teaching and learning. 66
It is not only harder to control classes67, but it is particularly difficult to
follow up on students who are academically weaker: as mentioned before,
because of the nature of the USE policy, teachers are faced with students
who are academically weaker and have more challenges to overcome than
children enrolling in non-USE schools. Moreover, as mentioned previously,
automatic promotion has decreased pressure on children to attend class since
students get promoted to the next level regardless of their attendance or
performance in class.
These tendencies area also reflected in the quantitative data. On the one
hand, as shown in figure 6, the total number of classrooms in all secondary
schools increased substantially with the implementation of USE, from
16,948 in 2006 to 31,368 in 2008; an increase of 85% in 2 years.68
< FIGURE 6 HERE>

Accordingly, the student-classroom ratio (SCR), calculated by dividing

enrolment in all secondary schools by the number of secondary school
classrooms69, rapidly decreased from 48 in 2006 to 35 in 2008 – as shown in
figure 7 below.

< FIGURE 7 HERE >

65
Interview, Deputy Head Teacher, Masaka, 10 September 2014. This is repeated by many
other actors: “There are around 110 students in my classes in O-level. I am used to it, other
places have up to 180 students per class.” (interview, science teacher, Kampala, 10 October
2014). “In senior one there are around 138 students per class, in senior two 119, in senior
three 96 and in senior four 115.” (interview, Head Teacher, Kampala, 1 October 2014). “Last
term [there were] 67 [students in my class] in S2 and 80 in S1” (interview, French teacher,
Kampala, 30 September 2014).
66
O’SULLIVAN, M. C., “Teaching large classes: the international evidence and a discussion
of some good practice in Ugandan primary schools.”, International Journal of Educational
Development, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2006, pp. 24-37. SEKIWU, D., “Strategies of coping with
effective teaching and learning in large classes in Secondary Schools in Kampala District”,
Unpublished paper, 2009.
67
For example, as a young teacher at a school in Kampala explains: “One of the main
challenges is lack of control over students; sometimes there are too many. The student-teacher
ratio is high.” (Interview, young teacher, Kampala, 10 October 2014).
68
The decline in 2012 seems to indicate an irregularity in the data collection.
69
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS, “Education Abstract 2013”, op. cit., p. 86.
On the other hand, this positive evolution did not last: after 2009, the
student-classroom ratio increased again, reaching 46 in 2013. Moreover,
there was a difference between USE and non-USE schools, in which USE
schools were worse off: the National Headcount Exercise of 2013 reveals
that for USE schools the national average is 62 students per class.70 The
exercise also reports high congestion in USE schools, with around 34% of
the schools accommodating more students than the policy's 60-students-per-
class target. Government data show that more than one in ten students
enrolled in the USE schools that participated in the headcount attended
school in classes of more than 120 students.71
Secondly, as was shown above in figure 1, the total secondary school
enrolment rapidly increased in the period 2007-2009 and continued with a
more stabilized growth from 2010-2013. Over the entire USE period, student
enrolment increased by 32%.72 Yet, the same MoES data indicate that
teacher deployment rose at a significantly slower rate, by 20%. Figure 8
depicts the total number of teachers deployed in secondary education over
the period 2000-2013. As is shown by the graph, there was a large
recruitment of teachers in the years following the implementation of USE.
However, since 2009 the number of teachers has slightly declined while
enrolment in secondary schools has continued to increase73. In this situation,
the additional recruitment of teachers was not sufficient to meet the
increased influx of students, because of which schools were left with
inadequate staffing, something which was continuously emphasized by
many school-level actors. As one headteacher, for example, summarizes:
“The number of teachers has gone up but so has the number of students. [...].
However, in USE schools teacher staffing remains inadequate [...]”74
< FIGURE 8 HERE >

In response to these challenges, some of the over-subscribed schools are

applying a double shift system, where students are taught in two shifts,
morning and afternoon.75 Naturally, this increases the work pressure on the
teachers. As the headteacher of a school in Kampala explains: “Teachers
have got to work the whole day, they must work from eight in the morning
until six in the evening.”76

70
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS, “A Comprehensive Report …”, op. cit.
71
Ibid. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS, “Education Abstract 2013”, op. cit.
72
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS, “Education Abstract 2013”, op. cit.
73
As shown above, this growth happened first rapidly, and then became a more stabilized
growth.
74
Interview, Deputy Head Teacher, Masaka, 10 September 2014.
75
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS, “A Comprehensive Report …”, op. cit.
76
Interview, 15 October 2014.
Moreover, although the workload for teachers has increased strongly since
the introduction of USE, their salary has paradoxically been reduced, since
they are no longer able to receive salary top-ups by the parents. This lack of
additional financial benefits for USE teachers has led to motivation
problems:
“The difference between USE and non-USE teachers is
motivation. In USE, there is no additional contribution by
the parents. And as a result, they are not paid additional
services such as accommodation, lunch, transport
allowance.”77
“Teachers are not motivated. When students were paying,
teachers received some extra money for transport and
housing allowances.”78
“In government schools teachers are paid by
government. [...] a PTA79 meeting was organised to ask
parents to increase their contribution for teachers’
salaries, but government policy actually doesn’t allow it.
The government doesn’t like it because they don’t want
anyone to pay for education. However, as long as parents
agree, it is okay. If the parents do not agree, the school is
not allowed to ask for these fees.”80
“The reasons why teachers do not show up for work are
motivation, their salary not being enough; so they work
part time in other places, (…)some don’t have money to
commute far, (…) some people don’t want to work”.81
As mentioned in the quotes above, USE teachers receive less financial
support than their colleagues in non-USE schools, where parents’
contributions cater for teachers’ transport allowances and the topping up of
their government salaries. USE schools, however, are discouraged from
asking for parental contributions and, consequently, lose the ability to
provide additional benefits to their teachers. As the above quotes illustrate,
USE teachers confirm that the lack of transport allowance and teacher
accommodation, together with the meagre pay, has led to low teacher
morale.
As a result of teacher absence, students are often left without class, leading
to gaps in the curricula and affecting student performance82. For example,

77
Interview, UNATU representative, Kampala, 17 October 2014.
78
Interview, Director of Studies, Kampala, 15 October 2014.
79
PTA stands for Parent-Teacher Association and is one of the governing bodies of secondary
schools.
80
Interview, Head Teacher, Masaka, 8 September 2014.
81
Interview, Head Teacher Private USE School, Masaka, 8 September 2014.
82
MOLYNEAUX, K. J., op. cit., pp. 62-78. URWICK, J., KISA, S., op. cit.
during our field research, students were often found not attending class, as
teachers were not present.83
Thirdly, another problem USE schools are facing is the inadequate timing of
government funds. As a trade union actor pointed out: “There is an
inconsistency in the release of funds, amount and timing. There is an
expectation that it comes on time: policy states it should come one week
before term starts.”84 However, funds are not distributed on time, which was
consistently mentioned by actors at the school level:
“Government pays little and late, sometimes I need to go
around and borrow money”85
“a major challenge is late remittances as a result of which
we have to engage, contract a supplier, enter in
agreement that if government grants are late these
suppliers supply instructional materials before payment is
done. A big disadvantage of this is that items become
more expensive.”86
The lack of adequately timed funding puts the school management under
great pressure, which, due to the struggle to cover day-to-day operations,
often fails to address basic quality issues. The main difference with
government non-USE schools is that the latter can increase school fees or
gather one-off additional funds from parents as a buffer, whereas USE
schools are dependent on the government to improve infrastructure and
provide physical resources.87 For USE schools, the Education Act of 200888
only allows school management to collect voluntary parent and third party
contributions to deal with emergency situations and imposes sanctions as
high as twelve months imprisonment for sending students away from school
or denying them access to education for failure to pay these contributions.
As a result, school management in USE schools can no longer easily collect
contributions from parents. In other words, funding for USE schools does
not arrive on time and is inadequate, which of course is problematic as USE
is primarily implemented in schools and communities where resources were
already scarce: USE was implemented in under-resourced schools which
under the policy mainly remained underfunded. DeJaeghere et al. describe
the paradox of the USE policy in the following way:

83
For example, when the first author was visiting a school, at a time when classes were
supposed to be taking place, several students were lying in the grass under a tree. When
approaching two girl students, they explained: “Now we’re supposed to have maths but the
teacher is not around.” Interview, 30 September 2014.
84
Interview, 17 October 2014.
85
Interview, Head Teacher, Kampala, 30 September 2014.
86
Interview, Head Teacher, Kampala, 15 October 2014.
87
Interview, Education Officer, Masaka Municipality, 14 August 2014.
88
The Education (pre-primary, primary and post-primary) Act of 2008, op. cit., p. 14.
 “USE schools are now having an increase in students
with minimal funding from the government, while [...]
better resourced schools do not have an influx of
students, or any additional students entering these
schools have to pay higher fees.” 89

4.3. The political role of free education policies

Lastly, it is important to mention how USE has played an important political

role: one of the motives behind the implementation of USE in 2007 was
President Museveni’s 2006 strategic election promise of ‘free’ education,
making Uganda the first sub-Saharan African country to embark on a
universal secondary education journey.90 Also on the international level,
USE has a number of advantages: it helps to build a good image for the
country in the international donor community, particularly by helping the
country to reach the Millennium Development Goals or MDGs.91 In the
implementation of USE, the government was able to obtain loans from the
World Bank and various other donors92.93 Similarly, UPE was a strategic
promise of President Museveni during the 1996 elections.94 Stasavage
demonstrates this in detail, by showing how initially (in 1995), Museveni
was still reluctant to invest in free primary education, deeming it more
effective to focus on increasing Ugandan citizens’ incomes through road
building so parents acquire more money to pay school fees themselves.95
However, Museveni radically shifted the electoral campaign focus to
universalizing primary education after his promise to abolish school fees in a
radio speech was highly appreciated by the electorate.96 It was generally
argued that the “scope of the election victory was due in large part to the
promise of free education”97. Moreover, data from the 2000 Afrobarometer
survey show, on the one hand, the popularity of president Museveni (93% of
respondents were somewhat or very satisfied with the president) –
particularly in comparison with other African countries (where this

89
DEJAEGHERE, J. G., WILLIAMS, R., KYEYUNE, R., op. cit., p. 319.
90
Ibid., pp. 312–320.
91
STASAVAGE, D., op. cit., pp. 53-73.
92
For donors, being active in the education sector in Uganda is equally beneficial, as
investing in education is seen as not only a basic human right but also an effective way of
eradicating poverty and enhancing economic growth. ALTINYELKEN, H. K., “Curriculum
change in Uganda: Teacher perspectives on the new thematic curriculum.”, International
Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 151-161.
93
ASANKHA, P., TAKASHI, Y., op. cit., pp. 16-30.
94
CHAPMAN, D. W., BURTON, L., WERNER, J., op. cit., pp. 77-82.
95
STASAVAGE, D., op. cit., pp. 53-73.
96
Ibid., p. 59.
97
Ibid., p. 65.
percentage was 65%), and on the other hand, it shows how this popularity
was directly linked to the government’s achievements in areas such as
education.98 In other words, free education policies are politically useful and
beneficial. This is not only the case for the President himself – as
demonstrated by Stasavage99 - but also for other politicians: many politicians
use the ‘free education’ discourse as a way of gaining popularity among their
constituents. While this certainly creates benefits for politicians, this is less
so for schools. As the following interview quotes of local school actors
illustrate, free education policies are used by individual politicians to create
political capital, a situation which has a negative effect on the actual
functioning of the schools, and particularly the relations with the parents:
“Education is politicized, the parents have to provide
lunch, uniforms and books but when politicians
campaign or come to the schools they tell parents not to
pay, they tell them they can just send their children to
school. Politicians even say if anyone or any school asks
for money, this should be reported to them.”100
“Education is politicized. When USE was started they
would go tell parents that everything was on the
government. As a result responsibility of parents was
withdrawn, they sat back and expected government to do
everything [...] people in policy making positions have
been ignoring this because they do not put their children
in USE schools, they send them to expensive private
schools. So, they are not touched directly.”101
“Politicians just want to be popular, they don’t
necessarily tell the truth, just want to be popular. They
infuse it with popularization and own desire to be known
among the people. Politicians are selfish, they only look
at their vote. Especially now in the country, they see
politics as a career, they struggle to get in, not as a
service.”102
In sum, politicians in Uganda portray USE as a government offer which
provides completely free education to the entire population. As shown
above, this is not the case; and the politicians’ statements are therefore not
only misleading for the parents, but also for USE schools: the USE program
was designed with the co-responsibility of government, parents and schools

98
Ibid., p. 67.
99
Ibid., pp. 53-73.
100
Interview, Ugandan NGO actor, Kampala, 29 September 2014.
101
Interview, UNATU representative, Kampala, 17 October 2014.
102
Interview, Ugandan employee from a donor actor, Kampala, 3 October 2014.
in mind in order to provide the support, materials and facilities necessary to
effectively educate the children in secondary schools. The politicians’
statement of completely free education, which put all financial responsibility
strictly with the government, have therefore led to a strong reduction of
parental involvement.
As some of the interviewed (deputy) head teachers explain:
“One of the main challenges of the school concerning
USE is reduced parental involvement. They think
everything is for free.”103
“Parents are not sensitized. USE is seen as a government
offer, [the parents] don’t care about their children’s
schooling, they’re waiting for government to take
action.”104
In other words, many parents expect the government to provide everything
for their children’s education. The way in which the USE policy is
understood is crucial in this, and particularly the politician’s role in creating
this impression, while the government has failed to properly sensitize the
population to the actual content of USE. An NGO actor in an interview
states how “the government only conducts a limited sensitization of different
stakeholders, leading to parents not doing their roles”105; while others hold
the schools responsible: “[...] now schools have to take up their role to
sensitize the parents [...]”106. In their study on the effectiveness of newspaper
campaigns in reducing the capture of UPE funds in Uganda, Reinikka &
Svensson107 demonstrate the power of public information: sensitization of
the general public to particular policies is crucial for the successful
implementation of these policies. The use of these policies as political
capital is rather harmful, particularly because parental engagement is crucial
for the USE policy.
This lack of sensitization feeds into an existing situation, in which certain
categories of parents only have limited interest in the education of their
children: the underprivileged background of USE students means that many
family heads of USE students only have limited education and, as a result,
do not always fully realize the importance of secondary education.108 Or as a

103
Interview, Deputy Head Teacher, Kampala, 10 October 2014.
104
Interview, Head Teacher, Kampala, 1 October 2014.
105
Interview, Ugandan NGO actor, Kampala, 29 September 2014.
106
Interview, Ugandan employee from a donor actor, Kampala, 3 October 2014.
107
REINIKKA, R., SVENSSON J., “Fighting corruption to improve schooling: evidence
from a newspaper campaign in Uganda.”, Journal of the European Economic Association,
Vol. 3, No. 2-3, 2005, pp. 259-267.
108
Interview, Head Teacher, Kampala, 30 September 2014. Interview, school counsellor and
teacher, Kampala, 30 September 2014. Interview, head girl, Kampala, 1 October 2014.
Interview, Director of Studies, Kampala, 15 October 2014.
head girl summarizes it: “Some of our parents do not know the value of
education because they are not educated themselves, think the money is still
too much.”109

5. Conclusions

This article discussed the impact of the Universal Secondary Education

policies on education attainment and performance. It showed how the impact
of USE has been rather mixed. Amongst other things, its political role played
an important role in this. Concretely, 110 ‘free’ education policies such as
USE have an important political purpose: USE helped President Museveni in
the 2006 elections, and it helps a whole range of political actors in gaining
popularity at the local level. In doing so, political rhetoric about the
importance of USE has proven to be more important than the quality of
services and budgetary commitments: its budgetary importance continues to
decline, and budgetary instalments often come too late – while these
commitments are crucial in universal education policies. Put differently, the
importance which is given to education on a discursive political level is not
followed up in practice. This has led to a situation in which the general
circumstances in which schools need to function are far from ideal: strongly
congested classrooms and delayed budgetary transmissions for example all
negatively affect the way in which the schools function. Furthermore, two
categories of actors are crucial in explaining the current performance: first,
teachers in USE schools are in several ways worse off than before: they are
faced with a much higher workload, due to the higher number of students, as
well as the academically more challenging circumstances due to the lower
admission criteria and automatic promotions. However, they are paid less
than before the USE policy: they are no longer able to receive additional
contributions from parents under the USE system. This, of course,
negatively affects their morale, and their presence in the schools – all of
which negatively affects educational performance. Second, the role of
parents is also crucial. Poor parents are still faced with a range of financial
and non-financial constraints: they still have to pay for a range of costs, such
as uniforms and lunches, and more generally, the opportunity costs of
sending children to school remain high. As the USE policy mainly targets
poor communities these (indirect) financial constraints continue to play a
major role in the schooling decision. Moreover, parents are also less
involved with the schools than they were before the introduction of USE. All
of this affects the performance of the students, which a deputy head teacher

109
Interview, head girl, Kampala, 1 October 2014.
110
Chapman et al. make the same point. CHAPMAN, D. W., BURTON, L.,WERNER, J., op.
cit., p. 81.
 summarized in the following way: “Performance has decreased since USE,
students are not well motivated. They lack lunch, because of negligence
from parents or guardians. The general attitude is poor; because education is
free, the parents don’t see their role as stakeholders.”111
In sum, it can be argued how USE is very much a national-level political
decision which has been introduced without taking much into account the
effects throughout the education system on particular categories of actors on
various levels. In this way, USE suffers from the same problems as UPE: the
necessary partnerships are missing, and need to be strengthened. With regard
to UPE, Higgins & Rwanyange112 highlighted the importance of local
ownership of reforms and called for “more concerted attention to
strengthening local partnerships, cooperation and creativity and facilitation
of greater integration between different levels of the education system”.
This, of course, is not enough: more budgetary attention is crucial to
improving the performance of USE.

Gent/Brussels, July 2015.

111
Interview, Deputy Head Teacher, Kampala, 10 October 2014.
112
HIGGINS, L., RWANYANGE, R., “Ownership in the education reform process in
Uganda.”, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, Vol. 35, No. 1,
2005, p. 7.

View publication stats