Journal of Humanitarian Assistance

Chapter 6: Rehabilitating the Education Sector

Post-war situation

Rwanda's education infrastructure was heavily damaged during the civil war and aftermath. Over three-quarters of the nearly 1,800 primary schools and some 100 secondary schools were physically damaged;[1] school equipment and materials were looted or destroyed. More than half of the 19,000 school teachers were killed;[2] many more fled or became internally displaced. With minimal resources and personnel, however, some primary schools resumed operations in September 1994. By March 1995, over 1,500 primary schools and a limited number of secondary schools had reopened.[3]

Nearly one year after its total disruption, primary school enrollment was near 800,000, a higher-than-expected enrollment of the estimated one million children of primary school age.[4] Préfectures in the north, Ruhengeri and Byumba, report the highest student enrollment while the Gikongoro, Kibungo and Bugesera préfectures in the south and south-east report the lowest. About 70 percent of primary school pupils were concentrated in the first three grades.[5] The quality and coverage of primary education remains very limited because of severe teacher shortages, inadequate school facilities, and a lack of basic materials - greater than although similar to pre-war problems. An additional difficulty for Rwanda's new education system has been the influx of students from neighboring countries, particularly Uganda, who speak other languages and come from different education systems.

Although the primary education system is considered functional, as one Rwandese educator noted, "There's plenty of good intention and motivation but very few teachers with any decent qualifications, so it's wrong to say 'it works'." After the war, the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education quickly organized remedial courses to enable graduating high school students to qualify for teaching positions, but, by the Ministry's own account, over 60 percent of the 15,000 primary school teachers lack any formal pedagogic training. An IOC database on education shows wide prefectoral variation in the proportion of qualified teachers, from 95 percent in urban Kigali to 36 percent in Byumba. Further, except for donations of some vehicles, office equipment and materials, school authorities from the central to commune level have little or no means with which to work.

International assistance for rehabilitation and reconstruction of the education sector, initially focused on primary education, has played a limited but valuable role, emphasizing emergency supplies of material, rehabilitation of structures and food aid salary supplements to teachers. Because it represents the core of international assistance in the sector, primary education has also been the focus for this aspect of the evaluation.

International interventions

The Teacher Emergency Package (TEP) Program

The largest and most visible intervention was the joint UNICEF-UNESCO Teacher Emergency Packages (TEP) program, co-designed by UNHCR, which began in August 1994 as the primary intervention of the Emergency Education Program. TEP is a self-contained mobile "classroom" for 80 students and a teacher. The program is designed as a four-to fivemonth bridge to provide teachers and students with immediate psychological support and to prevent the total breakdown of educational services. These "school-in-a-box" kits contain lesson plans in basic numeracy and literacy (in Kinyarwanda), exercise books, slates and chalk, pencils and erasers, and other basic school materials. The TEPs provided in Rwanda and the refugee camps in Zaire and Tanzania represented adaptations from similar kits provided in Somalia. Cholera and mine awareness campaigns, as well as an Education-for-Peace component, were adapted for Rwandese needs and added to the basic TEP program. By March 1995, UNICEF and UNESCO, with the assistance of some NGOs, had distributed some 7,400 TEPs throughout the country (see Table 5.1). In addition, by March 1995, some 1,300 kits had been distributed in camps in Tanzania, Goma and Bukavu. As of May 1995, 640,000 Rwandese children had benefitted from TEP and approximately 7,500 teachers trained.[6]

As an emergency intervention, the TEP provided an immediate structure for children and teachers that prevented a prolonged disruption in schooling and contributed to a return to normalcy. However, there were serious shortcomings. The first was in regional and school grade coverage. The TEP was distributed only to the lowest grades, covering about three quarters of the children. Further, logistical problems hindered the rapid distribution of packets and caused some regional gaps in coverage. For instance, neither of two primary schools visited in the Nyagatare commune (Byumba Prefecture) in May 1995 had received the TEP package and local rehabilitation officials were unaware of the program. In addition, education officials and local authorities in the Kibuye and Cyangugu were aware of the intervention, but were unable to determine whether the TEP packages had been distributed to schools in their préfectures. In June 1995, the TEP packets were still being distributed to some communes despite the fact that more substantial education programs had since been reestablished.

Table 6.1

Distribution of TEPs

Prefécture Number

Byumba 903

Kigali Ville 247

Kigali Rural 750

Butare 464

Gitarama 885

Kibungo 452

Gisenyi 944

Ruhengeri 1,051

Kibuye 451

Cyangugu 571

Gikongoro 669

TOTAL 7,387

UNICEF, Rwanda Emergency Programme.

Progress Report No. 1, May 1994 - March 1995.

Second, this late diffusion underscores questions about the TEP's appropriateness to begin with. The program attempts to shape a prefabricated intervention to needs of the country. For instance, the limited teacher training that accompanies the TEP enables teachers to use the packet; however, that training should be adapted to the needs of the country's existing education program. Children in Rwanda would have been better served if the international community had focused on rehabilitating the indigenous education system rather than investing scarce resources in the TEP program, particularly so many months after the emergency. Overall, the TEP program is better suited to a country at war or for children in refugee camps.

Salary payments and supplements

To assist in reopening primary schools, a number of organizations helped fund the salaries of teachers, administrators and civil servants. UNICEF funded one-time incentive payments of US$30 to teachers and staff, to "jump start" primary schools, totaling US$800,000. The EU and Belgium helped finance salary payments through the release of old counterpart funds. The single largest effort to maintain some level of support to primary schoolteachers, however, was made through WFP food-for-work schemes.

From September 1994 through February 1995, WFP provided almost 4,000 metric tons of food as salary supplements to primary schoolteachers in a modified food-for-work program. The value of the food payment was roughly equivalent to 50 percent of primary teachers' prewar salaries. About 1,200 metric tons have also been provided to civil servants, including those in the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education. This critical initiative provided basic necessities to some 17,500 teachers, school administrators, civil servants and their families until their salaries could be paid. Initially, this food support was planned through June 1995, to be scaled back thereafter as the government began to pay salaries through the ordinary budget. However, by June 1995 WFP had determined it necessary to continue food support to primary teachers, ostensibly because of irregular salary payments. This latter phase is expected to cover June and July 1995. In addition, since June, the ICRC has provided food support to 20,000 secondary school students in boarding schools.[7]

In spite of their flexibility and versatility, the wisdom of food-for-work programs has been questioned in the Rwandese context of general food aid distribution. The extent to which widespread distribution erodes the incentive value of food payments is at issue. WFP continued the program for longer than it had originally planned for two reasons. First, the government and donors were unable to make sufficient funds available to pay teachers. Second, there was food in the pipeline, available partly because of overly optimistic projections about returnees who would need to be fed and partly because of the better-than expected revival of agricultural production.

Rehabilitation interventions

Both UNICEF and UNESCO provided direct assistance to the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education to purchase basic office equipment, supplies and vehicles, and to reprint textbooks. Jointly, they supported training of teachers and Ministry personnel and are supporting the re-creation of a national teacher training center, as well as non-formal education and literacy programs. UNHCR has concentrated its efforts on upgrading damaged schools.

In addition, numerous small-scale efforts to repair structural damage have been implemented by NGOs, though programmatically limited and geographically localized.[8] Between Aide et Action and Jumelage Rhenanie-Palatinat, two of the larger efforts, some 450,000 students have been assisted with materials and have benefitted from school building repairs.[9] The large number of interventions in rehabilitating school facilities have not been well-coordinated or aligned with emerging national education guidelines. For instance, some "prestigious" schools with good visibility have been identified and prioritized for assistance, according to the directives of local officials rather than on the basis of the national plan. At no point have Ministry officials, donors, UN agencies and NGOs met to establish a uniform structure for wider program implementation and coverage. In order to rectify this, these groups must make the commitment to communicate and coordinate their efforts.

Problems and prospects

International assistance in education has been largely characterized by ad hoc emergency interventions with limited impact. The international community's weakness in support of rehabilitation and restoration of education is due in part to the programming limitations of emergency funds. For the most part, education activities are excluded from these funds because they are not deemed life-saving. It is, however, in the best interest of donors to adapt and design funding mechanisms to provide immediate support to education. The international community's continued rhetoric about healing would ring hollow if it overlooked the potential of education, which provides a structured return to daily life, which is the most important need among Rwandese children and, by extension, their families and communities. Basic and accessible education services throughout the country are necessary to help break the cycle of violence and set Rwanda on a new path to peace and relative prosperity. Donors have an immediate window of opportunity to contribute to curriculum reforms, improve accessibility to education and assist the government in its efforts to create a future for the country´s youth. As one Rwandese mother put it, "Education is the biggest hope for our country."[10]

In the Rwanda Recovery Program, the government estimated that rehabilitation costs for primary and secondary education alone would be US$18 million (and another US$16.6 million for higher education). Initially, US$20 million was pledged through the 1995 Round Table to reconstruct the education system, but at time of the evaluation field visit (May 1995) no money had been disbursed, although Germany had committed US$5 million. By year's end, pledges had reached US$50 million, of which US$36 million had been committed and US$4 million disbursed, primarily by the Netherlands (Rwanda National University) and Germany. Much more of the US$10.5 million in emergency funds, solicited by UNICEF and some of its NGO partners through the 1995 Appeal, has been forthcoming, as has been direct assistance from NGOs.

The government has demonstrated its commitment to education and its ability to initiate a national program. The international community should provide continued assistance directly to the government so that it can identify and address priority needs. Among the many needs, intensive short-term teacher training and in-service skill development programs are the most critical, until the graduates of long-term teacher colleges can be integrated into the system. Further, curricula and teaching programs must be adapted to the country's new educational context. Although guidelines have yet to be established, it appears that a bilingual curriculum (French and English) will be instituted, beginning in the first grade. This represents a dramatic change from the education policies of the past, which have focused on a Kinyarwanda-language curriculum through primary school - effectively leaving the vast majority of Rwanda's population unable to communicate with neighboring peoples. The international community should support efforts to open up and broaden the experiences of Rwanda's youth, both for the sake of the country as well as for the prospects of the individual children. It is without question that Rwanda will export labor in years to come and those speaking other languages will be better able to secure a living for themselves.

Endnotes

1) See World Bank, "Rwandese Republic Emergency Recovery Project Technical Annex," Report No.

T-6483-RW.

2) Estimate from the national teacher's association, Fédération des mouvements populaires.

3) See UNICEF, "Rwanda Emergency Programme. Progress Report No. 1, May 1994 - March 1995."

4) See Government of Rwanda, Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education and Ministry of Superior Education and Scientific & Cultural Research, "Politique et Planification de l'Education au Rwanda: Document de Travail."

5) See UNICEF, "Rwanda Emergency Programme. Progress Report No. 1, May 1994 - March 1995".

6) Interview with UNICEF Education Officer, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1995 and from UNICEF's "Rwanda Emergency Programme. Progress Report No. 1, May 1994 - March 1995."

7) See UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs, "Humanitarian Situation Report," June 15, 1995 referred to WFP plans to provide food assistance to 18,000 students in 6 préfectures. According to the ICRC ( "Comments on Study IV," 2 November 1995 (facsimile)), this was turned over to ICRC, which has managed the secondary school feeding program.

8) For instance, all of the following NGOs are involved in rehabilitation in some way (not an exhaustive list): AMURT, IRC, ARC, Aide et Action, Salvation Army, World Vision, ADRA, Accord, WRC, CARITAS, AVSI, CWA, Concern, Tear Fund CRS, Feed-the-Children, Jumelage Rhenanie-Palatinat.

9) Interviews with Mr. Rudolf Fischer, Director, Jumelage Rhenanie-Palatinat, and Philippe Lambiliotte, director, Aide et Action, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1995.

10) Interview with Madame Constance Mukayuhi, Secrétaire générale of ASOFERWA, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1995.