OBE in universities: Should schools follow suit?

Bangladesh is quietly undergoing a significant shift in the philosophy of higher education.

Universities across the country are increasingly adopting Outcome-Based Education (OBE)-an approach that focuses not simply on what students know, but on what they can actually do with what they have learned.

The lesson is not that OBE should be rejected. It is that educational reform cannot succeed through policy directives alone. Its success depends on the readiness of the entire education system.

In simple terms, OBE shifts the emphasis from teaching to learning. Instead of asking, “Has the teacher covered the syllabus?” it asks, “Can the student apply, analyse or create using what they have learned?” Learning outcomes are defined in advance, and the curriculum, teaching and assessment are designed around them.

This shift reflects a broader reality. In a technology-driven economy where industries, businesses and services are changing rapidly, employers increasingly value problem-solving, creativity, communication, collaboration, adaptability and the ability to apply knowledge in unfamiliar situations.

Education, therefore, must do more than transfer knowledge; it must help students learn how to use it.

But these capabilities do not suddenly emerge when students enter university. They are developed-or neglected-through years of schooling.

If universities are expected to produce graduates who can think critically, solve problems and apply knowledge, the foundations for these abilities must be laid much earlier.

This raises an important question for Bangladesh: if OBE is considered necessary in higher education, should its principles also extend to schools?

The question becomes more pressing when we examine what our school system often rewards.

Education in Bangladesh remains heavily influenced by memorisation, standardised examinations and prescribed content.

This model served an earlier era reasonably well, when educational success was largely measured by the ability to reproduce what had been taught.

Today, however, students can become highly efficient at passing examinations without necessarily developing the ability to think independently. Many rely heavily on prepared “notes” rather than exploring ideas themselves.

Analytical reading and writing, open-ended inquiry, debate and teamwork may receive less attention. Students can therefore become “exam-smart” without necessarily becoming “learning-ready.”

This does not mean that everything in the traditional system should be discarded. Rather, education must respond to a different future.

If universities are moving towards OBE because they recognise the need for graduates with stronger analytical and practical abilities, schools should arguably begin developing those abilities much earlier.

There are good reasons to consider this. OBE principles could shift school education from rote memorisation towards understanding and competency.

They could encourage critical thinking, application of knowledge and problem-solving, while creating greater continuity between school and university education.

ButOBE is not a magic formula. International experience shows that changing an educational framework does not automatically improve learning.

In some African countries, OBE reforms encountered difficulties because of inadequate teacher preparation, limited resources and complicated assessment systems.

Australia’s experience, particularly in Western Australia, also offers a cautionary lesson.

Early outcomes-based schooling reforms faced criticism over assessment complexity, teacher workload and uncertainty about judging student outcomes, contributing to significant policy changes.

The lesson is not that OBE should be rejected. It is that educational reform cannot succeed through policy directives alone. Its success depends on the readiness of the entire education system.

For Bangladesh, teacher preparedness is perhaps the most important issue. OBE requires teachers to move beyond simply delivering content.

They must facilitate learning, encourage inquiry, design outcome-based assessments and support students with different learning needs.

These skills cannot be developed through short, one-off training programmes; they require sustained professional development.

The examination system is equally important. Bangladesh’s schools remain heavily influenced by high-stakes, standardised examinations.

If students continue to be rewarded primarily for recalling information, teachers and parents will understandably continue to prioritisememorisation.

OBE cannot succeed unless assessment also begins to measure deeper understanding and the ability to apply knowledge.

Classroom realities matter too. Large classes, rigid curricula and limited instructional time can make interactive, student-centred learning difficult.

There is also a cultural dimension: examination results remain a major measure of educational success for students, families and schools. Changing this mindset will take time.

None of these challenges means Bangladesh should abandon the idea of applying OBE principles in schools. Rather, the country should proceed carefully and realistically.

A wholesale and immediate transition would be difficult to justify. A better approach would be a phased, system-wide adaptation within the existing education structure.

The first step could be to strengthen clearly defined learning outcomes and competency-based elements in the national curriculum and textbooks.

These outcomes should focus on what students should be able to understand, apply, analyse and create-not simply what they should remember.

Assessment should evolve alongside the curriculum. Public examinations could gradually include more analytical, application-based and open-ended questions.

Over time, appropriately designed continuous and school-based assessments could complement public examinations and capture aspects of learning that a single high-stakes examination cannot.

Teachers must be at the centre of this transformation. Training should focus not merely on the terminology of OBE, but on classroom practice-how teachers ask questions, encourage discussion, design learning activities, and assess whether students can actually apply what they have learned.

Ultimately, the debate over OBE at school level is about the purpose of schooling itself.

Should schools primarily prepare students to reproduce knowledge in examinations, or should they prepare them to think, question, solve problems, communicate, and adapt to a changing world?

Bangladesh is at an important point in this conversation. The move towards OBE in higher education reflects a growing recognition that traditional approaches alone may no longer be sufficient.

But because the foundations of learning are laid in school, reforming higher education without addressing what happens earlier may limit its impact.

Introducing OBE principles at the school level should therefore not become another top-down educational mandate. It should be treated as a strategic choice requiring careful planning, teacher preparation, experimentation and sustained commitment.

Done thoughtfully, it could help Bangladesh move from an education system that primarily rewards the reproduction of knowledge towards one that develops the ability to use knowledge.

Done hastily, it could become yet another reform that looks impressive on paper but delivers little in the classroom.

(The writer is distinguished Professor, Eastern University, and former Vice-Chancellor, East West University).