Two-term school calendar could shift financial burden to schools, UMEA warns

By Umaru Ssenyonjo

Education experts have raised concerns over the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) proposal to reduce Uganda’s academic calendar for primary and secondary schools from three terms to two, warning that the move could ease pressure on parents while creating fresh financial challenges for schools.

The FDC has argued that the current three-term system places a heavy financial burden on parents and guardians, who are required to meet school fees and other requirements three times a year.

But Hajji Nasser Kiwanuka, Deputy Secretary General of the Uganda Muslim Education Association (UMEA), says the financial implications of a two-term calendar should also be assessed from the perspective of schools.

Kiwanuka argues that extending each term from the current three months to about four months could prove difficult for schools that are already struggling to finance their operations.

“The reality is that there are very few schools actually who have adequate resources to run for four months in a term.”

He says some schools already struggle to keep operating until the end of the current three-month term because the funds collected from parents are often exhausted before the term ends.

According to Kiwanuka, this could mean that schools would either have to find additional resources to sustain learners for the longer term or increase school fees to cover the additional costs.

“It will also mean that the school fees has to be increased for that extra month.”

He says the additional month would come with increased costs for food, scholastic materials and other requirements needed to keep learners in school.

Kiwanuka also questions whether the proposed four-month terms would provide a genuine financial solution if the cost of maintaining a child in school simply has to be recalculated to cover the additional period.

“The amount of requirements a child needs for three months has to be extrapolated to cater for the extra month that that child also stayed in school.”

While proponents of the two-term calendar have focused largely on reducing the frequency with which parents pay school fees and provide school requirements, Kiwanuka says the proposal should be subjected to a broader financial assessment covering both households and schools.

He also notes that the longer terms may not necessarily disrupt learning for many learners, particularly those in upper primary and secondary schools, given that many children already spend part of their holidays engaged in private coaching.

“Our children hardly have any holiday, they can go through it.”

Kiwanuka therefore says a decision to move from three terms to two should be based on a clear assessment of the educational and financial implications rather than simply reducing the number of times parents make payments.

“Unless there is another scientific basis for the four months, the mathematics of it does not make a lot of sense.”