Article Information
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Institution issuing clarification | National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NaCCA) |
| Subject | Teacher training on Chinese language curriculum |
| Institution named | Confucius Institute, University of Cape Coast |
| Statement date | 16 September 2026 |
| Key clarification | NaCCA says it did not organise, commission, sponsor or authorise the programme as an institutional activity |
| Status of participating officers | NaCCA says they participated in their individual capacities |
| Policy clarification | NaCCA says the programme does not constitute a new national policy or rollout of Chinese language instruction |
| Signatory | Prof. Samuel Ofori Bekoe, Director-General, NaCCA |
Fact Check & Editorial Review
The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NaCCA) has issued a formal clarification denying that it organised, commissioned, sponsored or authorised a teacher-training programme conducted at the Confucius Institute at the University of Cape Coast (UCC) as an official NaCCA institutional programme.
The statement, issued on 16 September 2026, follows media reports describing the programme as a collaboration between NaCCA and the Confucius Institute to train teachers to implement a new Chinese language curriculum.
NaCCA says that characterisation is inaccurate.
According to the Council, NaCCA officers who attended the programme did so in their individual capacities as participants or resource persons, rather than as a delegation formally constituted or mandated by NaCCA.
NaCCA has therefore asked media organisations to correct reports that attribute the programme to an official NaCCA-Confucius Institute partnership.
The clarification is particularly significant because an earlier publication by UCC described the training as a programme initiated by the Confucius Institute and stated that a NaCCA Deputy Director spoke about a partnership between NaCCA and the Confucius Institute.
Key Takeaways
- NaCCA has formally denied organising or partnering with the Confucius Institute at UCC to conduct the reported teacher-training programme as an official institutional activity.
- The Council says its officers who attended participated in their individual capacities.
- NaCCA says the officers were not acting under an institutional mandate or authorisation.
- The Council says the programme should therefore not be presented as an official NaCCA-Confucius Institute partnership.
- NaCCA also says the programme does not constitute the introduction or rollout of a new national policy on Chinese language instruction.
- Earlier reports and a UCC publication had described the training in terms that suggested institutional collaboration between NaCCA and the Confucius Institute.
- NaCCA is asking media organisations to correct the institutional attribution.
In Brief
The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NaCCA) has distanced itself institutionally from a reported teacher-training programme on Chinese language education held at the Confucius Institute at the University of Cape Coast.
In a statement dated 16 September 2026, NaCCA said it did not organise, commission, sponsor or authorise the programme as an institutional teacher-training activity.
The Council explained that NaCCA officers who attended did so in their individual capacities and that their participation should not be interpreted as evidence of an official partnership, endorsement or policy decision.
The statement also clarifies that the programme does not amount to a new national policy introducing Chinese language instruction across Ghanaian schools.
Introduction
The clarification from NaCCA adds an important institutional dimension to the recent public discussion surrounding Chinese language education in Ghana.
Earlier reports described a training programme at the Confucius Institute at UCC as involving NaCCA and basic school teachers preparing to implement a new Chinese language curriculum. UCC’s own report stated that the Confucius Institute initiated the training and quoted a NaCCA Deputy Director as describing a partnership between the two institutions.
NaCCA has now issued a categorical clarification that its institutional involvement has been inaccurately portrayed.
The distinction matters because participation by individual public officers in an external professional or academic programme is not necessarily equivalent to formal institutional approval or partnership.
What NaCCA Is Clarifying
NaCCA says it did not organise, commission, sponsor or authorise the programme at the Confucius Institute as an institutional teacher-training programme.
The Council further says it did not constitute or mandate a delegation to participate in the programme on its behalf.
Its position is that the officers who attended participated as individuals serving as participants or resource persons.
NaCCA therefore wants the public and media to distinguish between:
Individual professional participation
and
Institutional authorisation
The Council says the former should not automatically be interpreted as the latter.
➡️ Related: Ghana’s National Curriculum and Assessment Framework
➡️ Related: Teacher Professional Development in Ghana
Why the Clarification Matters
Institutional attribution carries consequences beyond the attendance of individual officers.
When a programme is reported as an official NaCCA activity, readers may reasonably understand that the Council has formally approved, sponsored, endorsed or entered into an institutional partnership concerning the programme.
NaCCA’s latest statement says that inference would be incorrect in this case.
The Council is therefore asking media organisations that used such descriptions to correct the record.
The clarification also establishes an important distinction between technical engagement and policy approval.
An officer may participate in an academic, technical or professional programme without that participation automatically creating a new institutional policy or binding the institution to the programme.
Earlier Reports Described NaCCA Involvement Differently
The clarification follows reports published earlier in September describing NaCCA’s involvement in the Chinese curriculum training.
A UCC publication dated September 4 reported that NaCCA had held a national training workshop to equip basic school teachers with knowledge and skills to implement the new Chinese language curriculum. The same report said the Confucius Institute at UCC initiated the training and quoted NaCCA Deputy Director Dr Eric Amoah as referring to a partnership between NaCCA and the Confucius Institute.
The report also identified NaCCA’s Head of Curriculum, Mr Reginald Quartey, as a facilitator of a session on the 2026 Kindergarten and Primary Curriculum Review.
Several subsequent media reports repeated substantially the same institutional framing.
NaCCA’s September 16 statement now expressly rejects that interpretation of institutional involvement.
NaCCA’s Position on Chinese Language Policy
NaCCA has also clarified that the reported programme does not constitute the introduction or rollout of a new national policy on Chinese language instruction.
The Council says national curriculum policy and implementation are undertaken through established statutory, policy and stakeholder consultation processes and communicated through appropriate official channels.
This means that the existence of a teacher-training programme, even if teachers are being prepared to teach Chinese, should not by itself be treated as proof that Chinese has become a compulsory subject for every Ghanaian learner.
The status, scope and implementation of any national curriculum provision should instead be determined from formal curriculum and policy documents.
➡️ Related: Ghana Education Policy and Curriculum Reform
➡️ Related: Foreign Language Education in Ghana
What the Programme Was Reported to Cover
The programme itself was widely reported as covering several components of Chinese language curriculum implementation.
According to UCC’s earlier account, the sessions covered the philosophy and structure of the curriculum, curriculum content, expected learner proficiency, teaching approaches, assessment rubrics, practical teaching activities and the role of Chinese language coordinators.
The earlier report also stated that participants undertook practical teaching exercises based on the curriculum.
These details describe the content of the programme. They should now, however, be distinguished from the question of whether the programme was an officially authorised NaCCA institutional programme, which NaCCA has expressly denied.
The Institutional Attribution Issue
The emerging record contains two different descriptions that need to be distinguished carefully.
Earlier institutional description
UCC’s published account described the training as involving NaCCA and the Confucius Institute and quoted a NaCCA official referring to a partnership between the two institutions.
NaCCA’s subsequent clarification
NaCCA now says that it did not organise, sponsor, commission or authorise the programme as an institutional activity and that its officers attended in their individual capacities.
The latest NaCCA statement therefore supersedes the earlier interpretation for purposes of describing NaCCA’s institutional position.
EducateGhana will not characterise the programme as an official NaCCA-Confucius Institute partnership without documentary evidence establishing such institutional authorisation.
What This Does Not Necessarily Mean
NaCCA’s clarification does not, by itself, establish that Chinese language education has no place within Ghana’s education system.
There is separate evidence that Chinese language education has been developing in Ghana.
For example, UCC reported in December 2025 that a new Chinese curriculum had been launched and described Chinese as an elective subject at the secondary level.
The present clarification concerns the institutional status of the particular teacher-training programme and whether it should be attributed to NaCCA as an authorised institutional activity.
Those are separate questions.
What Remains to Be Clarified
The latest statement leaves several issues that may require further official clarification.
These include:
- The precise institutional status of the Chinese language curriculum referred to in the training.
- The schools or institutions in which the curriculum is intended to operate.
- Whether the programme forms part of a formally approved pilot or elective arrangement.
- The respective roles of NaCCA, UCC, the Confucius Institute and the Ghana Education Service.
- The capacity in which individual NaCCA officers participated.
- The formal documentation governing any curriculum development or implementation activities involving Chinese language education.
Until these matters are formally clarified, media reports should avoid converting individual participation into an institutional partnership or treating a curriculum-related workshop as proof of a nationwide compulsory-language policy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did NaCCA train teachers in Chinese?
NaCCA’s latest statement says the Council did not organise or authorise the programme as an institutional teacher-training programme. It says individual NaCCA officers participated in their individual capacities.
Did NaCCA partner with the Confucius Institute at UCC?
NaCCA says it did not establish or authorise the reported programme as an official NaCCA-Confucius Institute partnership.
Why did earlier reports describe a partnership?
An earlier UCC publication quoted a NaCCA Deputy Director as referring to a partnership between NaCCA and the Confucius Institute. NaCCA has now issued a formal clarification disputing the institutional characterisation.
Does the programme mean Chinese is now compulsory in Ghanaian schools?
No such conclusion should be drawn from the training programme alone. NaCCA expressly says the programme does not constitute a new national policy introducing or rolling out Chinese language instruction. Formal curriculum and policy documents should be relied upon for the definitive position.
Were NaCCA officers present at the programme?
NaCCA’s statement acknowledges that its officers attended, but says they did so in their individual capacities as participants or resource persons.
What is NaCCA asking the media to do?
The Council is asking media organisations that portrayed the programme as an official NaCCA-Confucius Institute teacher-training initiative to correct the institutional attribution.
Conclusion
NaCCA’s latest statement introduces an important correction to the public narrative surrounding the reported Chinese language teacher-training programme at the University of Cape Coast.
The Council does not deny that its officers participated in the programme. Rather, it draws a clear distinction between individual participation and institutional authorisation.
That distinction is central to understanding the issue.
Earlier reports, including an account published by UCC, presented the programme in terms that suggested institutional collaboration between NaCCA and the Confucius Institute. NaCCA has now formally rejected that characterisation and requested that the media correct the attribution.
The development also reinforces the need to distinguish between curriculum-related professional engagement, curriculum development, curriculum implementation and formal national policy approval.
For the public, the safest interpretation at this stage is that the reported training programme should not be presented as an officially authorised NaCCA-Confucius Institute partnership unless and until NaCCA provides documentation establishing such institutional authorisation.
About the Author
Ferdinand Ellis is a Ghanaian education blogger, curriculum specialist, researcher, education policy analyst and educator. He is the founder and editor of EducateGhana.com, Ghana’s Education Intelligence Platform, and writes on curriculum development, teacher education, education policy and developments in Ghana’s education system.
Editorial Note
This article incorporates NaCCA’s 16 September 2026 press statement as the authoritative source for the Council’s current institutional position.
EducateGhana has deliberately distinguished between the earlier reports about the training programme and NaCCA’s subsequent clarification. The earlier reports are relevant to explaining how the institutional attribution arose, but they do not override NaCCA’s current stated position.
The question of the formal status and implementation scope of Chinese language education should be determined from official curriculum and policy documents rather than inferred from the participation of individual officers in a training programme.
