This is the second in a series documenting the journey of building the Kahill Digital Marketing School. In Part 1, I shared the data and the conviction that made this assignment impossible to walk away from. This part is about the curriculum. How we designed it, what we chose to prioritise, and why so much of what passes for digital marketing training in our market leaves people certified but not capable.
When I ended Part 1, I promised I would come back and talk about the curriculum. I want to keep that promise properly. Because the curriculum is where most training either earns its place or quietly betrays the student. And I have come to believe something uncomfortable. The problem with most digital marketing training in our region is not the content. It is the order.
The Sequencing Problem
Walk into almost any digital marketing course and you will see the same shape. Week one: “Introduction to Social Media.” The following week: how to post on Facebook. Week three: how to design a graphic. Somewhere near the end, if there is time, a rushed conversation about strategy and analytics.
On paper, all the right topics are present. That is why the certificate looks credible. But the sequence teaches people to do things before they understand why those things matter. And who they are for, or how to tell whether they worked.
So you produce graduates who can make a post but cannot make a decision. They can operate the tools but cannot defend a choice in front of a client or an employer. And when I looked back at the skills-mismatch cases from Part 1, the candidates who had the certificates—almost every one of them—had been trained tool-first instead of thinking first.
That was the thing I was determined not to repeat.
What We Decided to Prioritise
When we sat down to design the eight weeks and the short courses, I made the team argue for the order. Not lists. Anyone can list topics. The discipline is deciding what has to come before what and being honest about why.
Three principles ended up shaping everything.
Strategy before tactics. We start with digital strategy and brand positioning. This is not because it is glamorous, but because every tactical skill that follows means nothing without it. You cannot write good content if you do not know who you are writing it for. Or what the brand is trying to become. So, content, social media, SEO, advertising, and the rest all sit downstream of a week that forces the student to think. To think like a strategist first. If the learners only remember one thing from the school, I want it to be that they learned to ask “why” before “how.”
Every week must produce something you can show. I have watched too many people finish courses with a folder full of notes and nothing they can hand to an employer. So we built the program so that each of the eight weeks and short courses produces a tangible output: a positioning document, a content plan, a live campaign asset, and a reporting dashboard. And a portfolio piece. Skills are invisible. Evidence is not. By the end, a student does not just say they can do the work; they can prove it.
Packaging is part of the skill, not an extra. This is where I think a lot of well-meaning training quietly fails people. You can teach someone brilliantly and still send them into a market that never gets to see it. Why? Because their LinkedIn is empty, their CV is weak, and they do not know how to present what they can do. So professional packaging, LinkedIn optimisation, CV work, and how to talk about one’s value are woven into the curriculum. Not bolted on at the end. In a market as competitive as ours, skill without packaging rarely converts into opportunity. I have seen it too many times to pretend otherwise.
Underneath all of it is one design choice I feel strongly about: modularity with integrity. Each of the eight modules can stand alone and be delivered in a focused three-hour session for someone who only needs that one area. But taken together, in sequence, they build into something a single workshop can never—a progression that leaves the student fundamentally more capable than the person who walked in.
The Part Nobody Puts in the Brochure
I said in Part 1 that we opened with infrastructure instead of a brochure, and designing the curriculum is where that decision got tested.
It would have been faster to write eight nice topic titles and start selling seats. It was slower, and honestly more humbling, to keep asking harder questions. Does this week actually build on the last one? Would an employer respect this output? If a student could only afford one module, would it still change something for them? Some weeks we rewrote the same session more than once because the first version taught the tool and forgot the thinking.
I will not pretend that was a clean, confident process. It was not. But I believe that when God gives you an assignment, He also gives you the patience to do it properly — and the conviction to refuse shortcuts even when the shortcuts would sell faster.
Where We Are Now
Since Part 1 went up, the work has moved from deciding what to build to opening the doors.
The eight-week curriculum is now fully mapped, week by week, output by output. The resource stack that supports it — templates, toolkits, brand kits, reporting frameworks, and the LinkedIn and CV support — has moved from idea to something we are actively assembling, because I refuse to run a school that teaches the work but leaves students without the tools to carry it out afterwards.
And here is the update I have been waiting to write: the school is now live. The site is up at school.kahillinsights.com, and applications for our first cohort are open. When I wrote Part 1, there was no cohort to enroll in, and I said so plainly. That season is over. The thing that existed only as conviction and structure is now something you can actually apply to.
We are taking applications on two sides. Trainees—the professionals, students, and business owners who want the depth of skill the market keeps failing to produce. And trainers—because a school is only as strong as the people who stand in front of the room, and I am building a bench of practitioners who teach from real work, not from theory. If either of those is you, the door is genuinely open.
Alongside the school, this has been a full season of building in general—new writing, ongoing consulting, and a personal milestone I marked recently that reminded me why this stage of the journey matters. But the school has stayed the assignment I keep coming back to, and getting it live has been the point of it all.
What’s Next
The next stretch is about people, not plans.
With applications open, we are now in the part where the curriculum stops being a document and becomes an actual room of students and trainers with actual goals. That is the part I am genuinely excited about and slightly nervous about, which is usually how I know something matters.
After the first cohort fills, comes the work that no design document can predict. Watching what the curriculum does when it meets real learners. Seeing which weeks land exactly as planned and which ones we will have to adjust. And beginning to finally build the employer partnerships that turn a portfolio into a placement.
Part 3 will be about that: the first cohort. How enrollment actually went. Who showed up, and what happens when a curriculum you argued over for weeks survives contact with real students…
I would rather write these while they are still uncertain than wait until they are polished. The building story is the honest one, and I still believe it matters as much as the launch story.
Applications for the first cohort are open now—for both trainees and trainers. If you have read this far and something in it resonates, visit the school and apply. To follow the rest of this series, subscribe to the blog or connect with me on LinkedIn. Leave me a comment below too.
Join my 25,000+ African entrepreneurs and receive digital architecture and leadership insights.
