Mukudzei Ziveyi from Pamushana High School. Photo Credit - ZBC
Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education (MoPSE) hinted at formally capping the number of subjects that learners can register for at both Ordinary (O) and Advanced (A) level examinations, triggering lively debate among educators, parents, students and experts about what it means for quality, workload and future opportunities.
Under the Heritage-Based Curriculum, O-level candidates may register for no more than nine subjects, while A-level learners are restricted to three principal subjects, a move the ministry says is designed to ensure depth of learning and reduce the pressure of excessive workloads on young people.
The policy change comes against the backdrop of a case that captured national attention. A 19-year-old Mukudzei Ziveyi from Pamushana High School in Masvingo Province registered for 12 A-level subjects in the 2025 exams and scored a remarkable 56 points. While many celebrated his achievement, education authorities viewed the situation as an outlier that highlighted underlying issues in the system.
Director of Communication and Advocacy in the Ministry Taungana Ndoro explained that the decision to cap subject entries is meant to shift the focus “from quantity to mastery” of key areas under the new Heritage-Based Curriculum, which is now being fully implemented nationwide.
“A cap on the number of examinable subjects to ensure quality instruction and credible learner outcomes,” Ndoro told The Sunday News. “A maximum of nine subjects at O-level and three principal subjects at A-level promotes meaningful understanding and reduces unnecessary academic overload.”
Some education specialists agree that the policy could lead to improved outcomes. Dennis Murairwa, an education policy analyst, said the cap could “help restore focus on core competencies rather than promoting a race for numbers.”
“In theory, focusing on fewer subjects allows students to build stronger conceptual foundations,” Murairwa said. “It also aligns Zimbabwe’s system with common tertiary expectations, which typically value focused achievement across three subjects at A-level rather than a high volume of exam entries.”
Tendai Marowero, a curriculum specialist with three decades of teaching experience, noted that the underlying issue may not be the number of subjects but the design and rigour of the examinations themselves.
“If the exams are such that a student can perform well across 12 subjects, perhaps we need to rethink the level of challenge and relevance of those exams,” Marowero said. “Capping numbers without addressing systemic content quality could be a cosmetic fix.”
Among parents, responses vary widely. Mrs. Tanaka Dube described the new policy as a relief rather than a restriction.
“I remember when my elder daughter sat for 11 O-level subjects, and we were under immense pressure, financially and emotionally,” Dube said. “Limiting subjects makes sense; it helps families plan and reduces burnout for learners.”
A-level student Donald Chauke echoed this view, saying that balancing three subjects will allow learners to excel without spreading themselves too thin.
“Preparing for 12 subjects was not only expensive but exhausting,” Chauke said. “For many of us, focusing on three subjects that matter for university makes more sense.”
Conversely, some students and young people believe the cap could limit potential.
Charmaine Zimbango, a Form 5 student at a city school, worries that the policy may suppress motivation for academically gifted students.
“I know classmates who have the passion and capacity to take more subjects,” she said. “Why should we limit ambition when there are opportunities to learn? Excellence isn’t just about three subjects.”
A sentiment shared online by other young Zimbabweans suggests that such caps could curb intellectual curiosity rather than nurture it, with one commenter arguing that difficulty and content quality — not subject count — should be the focus of reform.
The subject cap also has implications for the costs of education. Previously, government subsidies covered part of examination fees for students taking up to seven O-level subjects and three A-level subjects. Learners opting for additional subjects beyond those required pay the full cost for extra entries.
By limiting subject entries, the ministry’s policy could reduce financial strain on parents, particularly in low-income households where exam fees, especially for multiple subjects, can be a considerable burden.
However, some education campaigners argue that equity must remain at the core of any policy change.
“Capping may reduce costs, but if curriculum delivery is uneven across urban and rural schools, we may still see disparities in outcomes,” said Brighton Chiza, a parent.
Another key argument from the ministry is alignment with university admission requirements. Most Zimbabwean universities consider performance in three A-level subjects in determining eligibility for degree programmes, often requiring a capped number of points for specific fields of study.
“This policy realigns our secondary system with what tertiary education institutions actually require,” Ndoro said.
Experts who support this point emphasize that ensuring students are prepared and competent in a core suite of subjects could ease the transition to higher education.
Critics, however, call for broader reforms.
“They should not stop at capping subjects,” one online commentator wrote. “Let’s fix the teaching quality, increase resources, and make exams more rigorous. Capping alone doesn’t improve learning outcomes.”
Such views reflect deeper concerns in parts of the public about the robustness and credibility of Zimbabwe’s national examination system, a debate that has simmered for years and occasionally resurfaces with changes in curriculum or policy.
As the Heritage-Based Curriculum rolls out fully across the country, the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education says it will monitor compliance and provide support to schools and learners to excel within the new limits.
