This blog is written by Obiageli (Oby) Ekwunwa, Researcher at the Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa (CSEA), and Dr Thelma Obiakor, Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Cambridge.
When Chika was in the final year of junior secondary school, her school told her it was time to choose a stream: science, arts or commerce. She was drawn to mathematics and the practical, experimental side of science, but also loved writing and literature. She asked if she could combine physics, further mathematics (advanced mathematics) and literature. The answer was simple: “That’s not how it works.” By the next term, she was placed in the arts stream – where she could take literature and general mathematics, but none of the physics or advanced mathematics she had hoped for.
Chika’s experience is not unusual. It reflects a common practice in Nigeria’s secondary schools known as subject streaming – in this context, the assignment of students to a fixed curriculum track (science, arts or commerce) for their final three years of secondary school.[i]
The structure and logic of subject streaming
In Nigeria’s education system, subject streaming is a defining feature of senior secondary school. After completing the general curriculum during Junior Secondary School (JSS1–JSS3), students enter Senior Secondary School (SS1–SS3). Beginning in SS1 (equivalent to 10th grade in many education systems), students must select a subject stream. This streaming is based on a quick assessment of their interests, perceived intelligence or the availability of teachers. This decision shapes not only the subjects they will study for the next three years, but also their preparedness for, and success in, higher education.
The system is designed to align students’ strengths and interests with university and career pathways, particularly in preparation for the West African Senior School Certificate Examination (WASSCE). To sit for the WASSCE, students must take at least eight subjects, comprising four core subjects chosen from one of four academic streams: science and mathematics, technology, humanities (arts) or business studies (commerce).
In theory, this curriculum differentiation promotes focus, efficiency and relevance. The logic is straightforward: specialisation should help students deepen expertise in areas most relevant to their intended careers, while enabling schools to manage resources such as teachers, labs and equipment. However, this specialisation also means students are exposed to a narrow set of subjects, with limited opportunity to take courses outside their chosen stream. The system also lacks both the linkages and second-chance opportunities needed for students to move between streams, leaving many unprepared for university demands and careers beyond their assigned track.
The problem with early subject streaming
One of the core challenges with early subject streaming is that it narrows the range of skills students can develop. Science stream students typically gain depth in mathematics and sciences, but often have little exposure to the humanities, creative arts or social sciences. Conversely, arts or commercial students may study literature, government, history or accounting, but have limited access to technical subjects. In both cases, students can miss out on skills that later prove essential for careers they discover after their initial placement. For example, an arts student who decides to study economics, or one drawn to engineering, may find themselves underprepared for the academic demands of those fields, not because of ability, but because their secondary school pathway did not provide the necessary foundations.
Beyond these structural barriers, subject streaming can also entrench career mismatches and reinforce damaging social hierarchies. In many schools, the science stream is seen as the preserve of the “brightest” students, while arts and business streams are undervalued. This perception shapes how teachers, peers and even students themselves view academic potential, sometimes with lasting effects on confidence and ambition.
Subject streaming is not unique to Nigeria. International evidence shows that early tracking based on ability or career pathway tends to deepen educational inequalities. Several OECD countries, including Finland, Spain and Poland, have abolished early academic tracking because research shows it depresses outcomes for lower-performing students, particularly those from low-income and racialised backgrounds, thereby reinforcing lifelong achievement gaps. Likewise, in Australia, education researchers have raised concerns that streaming in mathematics can limit students’ exposure to advanced mathematics, narrowing the pipeline into fields such as engineering and other STEM disciplines.
While these international experiences are instructive, research on the impact of streaming within Nigeria’s education system remains limited. The Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa (CSEA) recently surveyed 375 undergraduate members of the National Economics Students Association (NESA) across 10 Nigerian universities. The results reveal a clear pattern: students from the science stream, who receive sustained exposure to both general and further mathematics in secondary school, display stronger academic performance in mathematics-intensive economics courses compared to their peers from the social science streams.
Why this matters
The consequences of early subject streaming extend far beyond the classroom. By narrowing access to essential subjects and skills, the system limits individual students’ options and reduces the breadth of talent available to Nigeria’s universities and labour market. In a global economy, where interdisciplinary knowledge is increasingly valuable, such structural barriers leave students ill-prepared for fields that demand both quantitative and analytical skills alongside creativity and communication.
The issue is also one of equity. When certain streams are seen as more prestigious and others have limited access to high-demand subjects, existing social inequalities deepen. The goal is not to compel every student to take every subject, but to ensure that all students can build a diverse knowledge base if they choose to, without being narrowed too early to a single stream. Students from less privileged backgrounds, who may not have the resources to seek extra tutoring or switch streams, are most likely to be affected, reinforcing patterns of disadvantage. Ultimately, the current model risks undermining Nigeria’s broader goals for inclusive education and human capital development, together with STEM growth.
The way forward
Students should be allowed to take a diverse mix of courses across sciences, humanities and business studies during senior secondary school, rather than being locked into rigid tracks from SS1. This approach would let them explore different interests, build a wider knowledge base, and make more informed choices about future studies or careers. The point of specialisation should come at WASSCE registration, when students decide which subjects to sit for based on the paths they want to pursue. This model would give students freedom to combine, for example, further mathematics with literature, or economics with physics, ensuring that no doors are closed too early. Ontario, Canada’s “destreaming” initiative demonstrates how delaying streaming and widening access can reduce disparities and create more equitable outcomes.
Even with more flexible subject choice, all students should graduate with a baseline level of STEM literacy. This means embedding compulsory mathematics, science and digital skills modules across senior secondary school, while leaving electives open for students to combine according to their interests. For instance, a student might choose literature or economics as electives but would still take a general science or technology course to build essential competencies. Embedding practical STEM modules into the core curriculum, as seen in the United Arab Emirates, would ensure that all students graduate with scientific and technological proficiency relevant across professions.
Reform should also be guided by data. In New Zealand, a 2023 review recommended national research on streaming’s prevalence and effects to inform policy change. A similar evidence-first approach in Nigeria would ensure reforms deliver meaningful, measurable improvements. Ultimately, reforming streaming is not about removing structure but redesigning it to serve students’ ambitions rather than constrain them.
[i] This differs from systems in some other countries, where “streaming” often means placing students in higher or lower sets for specific subjects (for example, advanced maths or standard maths) while they still take a broad mix of courses.
