Skip to content
Home » Visit Kindergarten School In Musanze – Rwanda | Nursery School In Rwanda The 92 Top Answers

Visit Kindergarten School In Musanze – Rwanda | Nursery School In Rwanda The 92 Top Answers

Are you looking for the topic “nursery school in rwanda – Visit Kindergarten school in Musanze – Rwanda“? We answer all your questions at the website in category: You will find the answer right below. The article written by the author BEYOND THE GORILLAS EXPERIENCE has 119 views and 4 likes likes.

Table of Contents

Watch a video on the topic nursery school in rwanda

Please continue to watch videos on this topic nursery school in rwanda – Visit Kindergarten school in Musanze – Rwanda here. Look carefully and give us feedback about what you are reading!

Visit Kindergarten school in Musanze – Rwanda – nursery school in rwanda, details of this topic

See more information on the topic nursery school in rwanda here:

nursery – The schools database of Rwanda –

Little Bears Montessori school. KG 674 St, Kimihurura Cell, Kimihurura Sector, Gasabo District, Kigali-Rwanda. PRIMARY; NURSERY.

+ Click here for details


Date Published: 2/17/2022

View: 4084

Nursery School Scholarship Project – Rwanda Children’s Hope

Samaritan International School has 92 nursery students (year 2017) in three different levels which are Baby Class, Mdle Class, and Top Class.

+ View more here


Date Published: 1/8/2022

View: 2338

nursery — School Guide – Kigali Moms and Dads

Our school, which is supported by the British NGO A Partner in Education, is a low fee school that blends the Rwandan curriculum with international methodology.

+ Show more here


Date Published: 3/27/2022

View: 5829

Nursery – Hope Haven Rwanda

The Nursery School program at Hope Haven School focuses on developing social, emotional, behavioral and physical skills as well as academic readiness.

+ Read more here


Date Published: 4/6/2021

View: 2036

Rwanda Pre School Structure – Apply & Study in – RocApply

The Kindergarten or Nursery 3 prepares children for Primary education and focuses on early literacy and numeracy. Learning and teaching here are done in various …

+ View more here


Date Published: 12/4/2022

View: 5756

Dove International Montessori School

Preschool & Kindergarten. The goal of early childhood education should be to cultivate the child’s own natural instinct to learn, encouraging him / her to …

+ View more here


Date Published: 8/4/2022

View: 2202

Nursery – Wisdom Schools Rwanda

Wisdom School has experience in nursery education from 2008 where parents are happy for education of their ks at Wisdom Schools. Ibisabwa mu Gihembwe cya …

+ View here


Date Published: 3/27/2022

View: 3995

Images related to the topic nursery school in rwanda

Please see some more pictures related to the topic Visit Kindergarten school in Musanze – Rwanda. You can see more related images in the comments, or see more related articles if needed.

Visit Kindergarten school in Musanze - Rwanda
Visit Kindergarten school in Musanze – Rwanda

Rate articles on topics nursery school in rwanda

  • Views: 119 views
  • Likes: 4 likes
  • Date Published: Sep 11, 2021
  • Video Url link:

What age do children start school in Rwanda?

Rwanda: School starting age, primary school

The latest value from 2020 is 7 years. For comparison, the world average in 2020 based on 195 countries is 6 years.

What is the best age for nursery school?

The typical age for nursery school is between 2.5 years and 3.5 years of age. This is the ideal age for a child to explore new boundaries and spaces and spend a little time away from home and familiar surroundings. Children of this age are often able to eat on their own and communicate with a few words or sentences.

Is primary school free in Rwanda?

Abstract. In 2003, Rwanda introduced free education as part of government policy to improve school enrolment in general and the attendance of deprived children in particular.

What are the best primary schools in Rwanda?

Primary Schools in Rwanda
Excella School Located in Kimironko Tel: +250-788306085/6/+250-788754919
Green Hills Academy Located in Nyarutarama Tel: +250 (0) 252 580746
Kinunga Primary School Located in Kinunga Tel: +250-788831700/+250-78522720
Camp Kigali Primary School Located on Rue del Abattoir, Kigali Tel: +250-788453170

Does Rwanda have good education?

In sub-Saharan Africa, Rwanda is one of the top-performing countries in education. 98 per cent of children are enrolled in primary school. However, there are still several challenges in education. Although nearly every child enrolls into primary school, only 71 per cent of children complete their primary education.

How are children treated in Rwanda?

In Rwanda, many children and teenagers are raised in poor and vulnerable families and communities. Harsh child discipline and domestic violence are still common. Recent studies show that over half of children and young people experience physical, sexual or emotional violence before age 18.

Is nursery good for 2 year olds?

Experts say the best age would be two years old. Two years is the right age at which children will feel confident and will also enjoy being sent to a nursery or playgroup where they are cared for, supported, and taught to be confident and with high self-esteem.

Should I send my 2 year old to nursery?

For a child aged 1-2

However, experts assured that it does not mean nurseries are bad for children aged 1-2. They indicated that these children need extra care and time when they go home after nursery. The extra attention helps children get back to their ’emotional equilibrium’.

Should I put my 3 year old in preschool?

Enrolling preschool at three years of age helps your preschooler develop fine motor skills such as writing letters and numbers. These skills inspire preschoolers to continue with academics in the future by going to kindergarten when they are five years old.

How much is school fees in Rwanda?

The annual tuition rates are as follows: Kindergarten: $14,625, grades 1-5: $19,800, grades 6-8: $21,150, and grades 9-12: $23,625. Students are also charged an initial application and registration fee of $500 to $1,000 with a family maximum of $2,000.

Where does Rwanda rank in education?

It is also lower than the average years of schooling in developed countries and Sub-Saharan Africa, which are 10.0 years and 4.5 years respectively. Based on the 2010 Human Development Index (HDI) report, Rwanda is ranked at 152 out of a total of 169 countries under the ‘Low Human Development’ category.

Is Rwanda poor?

Rwanda is, by all measures, a poor country. The 1994 war obliterated the country’s economy, social fabric, human resource base, and institutions. Almost 90 percent of the population lives on less than US$2 per day and half of its population lives on less than US$1 per day.

How many primary schools are there in Rwanda?

Primary Education

The number of primary schools increased from 2,752 in 2015 to 2,909 in 2018 while the gross enrolment rate increased from 135.3% to 137.5% and the net enrolment , from 96.9% to 98.3% in these years.

How many private schools are in Rwanda?

According to the latest education statistics published by the MINEDUC, there were 522 public secondary schools, 892 government-aided schools, and 314 private schools in Rwanda in 2018.

What is the education system in Rwanda?

Rwanda operates on a 6-3-3-4 system: Primary School – 6 years. Junior Secondary School (Ordinary level) – 3 years. Senior Secondary School (Advanced level) – 3 years.

Rwanda School starting age, primary school – data, chart

Rwanda: Primary school starting age , 1970 – 2021: For that indicator, we provide data for Rwanda from 1970 to 2021. The average value for Rwanda during that period was 7 years with a minimum of 7 years in 1970 and a maximum of 7 years in 1970. The latest value from 2021 is 7 years. For comparison, the world average in 2021 based on 190 countries is 6 years. See the For that indicator, we provide data for Rwanda from 1970 to 2021. The average value for Rwanda during that period was 7 years with a minimum of 7 years in 1970 and a maximum of 7 years in 1970. The latest value from 2021 is 7 years. For comparison, the world average in 2021 based on 190 countries is 6 years. See the global rankings for that indicator or use the country comparator to compare trends over time.

Select indicator * indicates monthly or quarterly data series

Definition: Primary school starting age is the age at which students would enter primary education, assuming they had started at the official entrance age for the lowest level of education, had studied full-time throughout and had progressed through the system without repeating or skipping a grade.

All you Need to Know about Nursery Admission in the Best Schools

A good nursery school provides a solid foundation to very young children in order to get them ready to attend formal primary schooling. The environment in a nursery school fosters independence and helps children understand the importance of sharing and giving.

It improves their communication and gives them a platform to express themselves individually without the guidance of their parents. These formative years teach children the basics of alphabets and numbers and concentrates on organised play and teaches children the importance of turn-taking while they take part in different activities.

With the help of their teachers and guides, children learn about the environment they live in and this also gives them the opportunity to realise that there are different kinds of people in our society who have different needs than their own kind.

Developmental skills

Apart from this, young children also achieve early fine motor development milestones that help them do their daily activities like eating, drinking from a cup, stringing beads, holding crayons, colouring, drawing rough shapes and turning pages of a book etc..

For the first time in their lives, these toddlers spend a couple of hours everyday away from home and this gives them the opportunity to make their own decisions with regard to using the restroom, taking a bite from their snackbox when they are hungry or picking an activity that they are interested in working on.

All these crucial milestones are necessary in order to proceed to KG1 and KG2 where they learn to write their first letters and numbers and other concepts of preschool education. These points can also help you determine the right age for nursery admission for your child.

Appropriate Age for Nursery Admission

The typical age for nursery school is between 2.5 years and 3.5 years of age. This is the ideal age for a child to explore new boundaries and spaces and spend a little time away from home and familiar surroundings.

Children of this age are often able to eat on their own and communicate with a few words or sentences. It is during this time that most children show an interest in mingling and playing with other children of their age. Considering all these parameters, a parent can decide when to opt for nursery schooling for their child.

Is Nursery Schooling mandatory?

Though nursery is not mandatory, it definitely helps the child develop important social skills that can be ideally provided by a school environment. Attending nursery school can help the child immensely during her KG1 and KG2 years as she is already familiar with a classroom setup and the relationship between the teacher and herself.

Due to this familiarity, it will take a very short time for her to get acclimatized at the beginning of the next new academic year. This also leads to better concentration in class which leads to better understanding of her lessons.

Can an emotionally dependent child start nursery school?

Some children might need constant reassurance for affection, approval and appreciation. Some might not seem like they are ready for nursery schooling and may be facing separation anxiety.

Some children may express their anxiety by crying and clinging to their parents or they may withdraw into a shell and may seem very shy to socialize. In Spite of these different emotions, most children eventually settle down and adjust to their surroundings within the first few weeks of schooling.

What should an ideal nursery program offer?

An ideal nursery school or preschool understands the anxieties of a child and the teacher plays the role of a supporting guide and uses tactful methods to welcome a child into her classroom with positivity and reinforcement.

A nursery classroom should enable an environment that encourages independence of the child. Children also learn best in a safe and friendly space therefore teachers should create a child centered environment where children are supported whenever needed.

Children should also get a sense of belonging while inside her classroom and much of these attributes lie in the hands of the educator or the teacher. Schools should hire professional teachers who have a sound understanding of child development and emotional and physical milestones in order to understand the temperament of the child.

What should be inside a nursery classroom?

The classroom should be engaging and should provide activities that pique the interest of children. Classrooms should be well-ventilated with ample sunlight and the furniture should be child-friendly and the activities should be accessible to them easily where they can pick and choose without the help of their teachers.

The role of teachers in your child’s life

Apart from the parents, the teacher plays a crucial part in the emotional development of a child. The teacher should teach all children equally irrespective of the child’s cultural background, religion or his abilities. Positive reinforcement and an inclusive set up can foster healthy relationships among children and their peer groups.

Apart from this, the best schools in Bangalore also offer a state of the art campus to children even in the nursery group and there are specific spaces to cater to the needs of these children. Most international schools in Bangalore have virtual labs and smart classrooms to help children learn their concepts faster in an engaging environment.

Why should you choose one of the best schools in Bangalore?

The first year of a child’s schooling can be daunting and emotional and as a parent, you would want to provide a school that is safe and secure for your child.

There are other crucial factors to consider like the facilities the school offers and the amount of extra curricular activities the school provides. This might not apply to a very young child but it will if you want to continue with the same school for a longer period of time.

Schools that provide a holistic environment by imbibing unique frameworks and pedagogies go a long way in benefitting your child during her formative education years.

If you are doubtful about the nursery admission age, then you can visit the school and have a chat with the concerned department to get an idea if your child is ready yet.

Some of the best schools in Bangalore offer a Campus tour to help parents gauge the school in question and this can be a good ice-breaker both for you and your child with regard to finding the right school .

Free Education in Rwanda: Just One Step towards Reducing Gender and Sibling Inequalities


In 2003, Rwanda introduced free education as part of government policy to improve school enrolment in general and the attendance of deprived children in particular. However, in addition to school fees, other factors hamper school careers of children. Shifts in attendance were analysed using binary logistic regression on data from the 2000 and 2005 Integrated Household Living Conditions Surveys. The results show that although the policy has been very successful, the objective has not been achieved. We find a strong effect of the sibling position of the child in the household and its relation to the household head. Substantial numbers of orphans/foster children in Rwanda do not profit from the free education policy and part of the children leave before completing school, in particular girls. Free education is only one step towards a more equitable distribution of educational opportunities.

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”

Nelson Mandela

1. Introduction

Most developing countries will probably achieve universal enrolment in primary education for boys and girls in 2015 and will thus meet Millennium Development Goal 2. This, however, does not apply to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Although they are making impressive progress, there is still a long way to go (see [1]) as they started off farthest from the desired target (see [2]). Rwanda is one of the few sub-Saharan countries where the gap between objective and result is very small (see [3]). In Rwanda, the enrolment rates have been historically high; at 90 percent, the challenge is to identify and help the last 10 percent of the school-age children that is yet to be enroled in primary school (see [4]). The Rwandan government targeted achieving universal primary education in 2010, and nine years of basic education for all children in 2015. As stated in its Vision 2020 policy document (see [5]), the government aims to transform Rwanda’s agricultural-based economy into a knowledge-based economy, for which human resource development is of vital importance. The government emphasises gender equity in all segments of society and the economy, meaning that boys and girls should equally enrol in education.

Several measures have been taken to implement this policy. One was the abolition in 2003 of fees for primary education, which removed one of the obstacles to accessing education. According to Grogan [6], the elimination of school fees is a recent phenomenon in Africa because Malawi eliminated fees in 1994, Uganda in 1997, Tanzania in 2000, and Cameroon, Burundi, Ghana, Rwanda, and Kenya in 2003. In all countries in which UPE (Universal Primary Education) was instituted, the elimination of the direct costs of schooling created an instantaneous large increase in school enrolment (see [6, 7]). The aggregate increases in enrolment after the elimination of fees reflect both increases in school attendance among the primary school-age population and among adults and teenagers attending school for the first time (see [6]). In opposite to these results, Bold et al. [8] recently found that the nationwide abolition of public school fees in Kenya in 2003 did not lead to an increase in net public enrolment rates, but rather led to a dramatic shift toward private schooling.

Our contribution to the debate on achieving universal primary school attendance has three objectives: to investigate who have profited from the free education policy in Rwanda, to discover remaining barriers to school attendance in primary education, and to determine which groups of children still fall by the wayside and should be targeted by future policies. We therefore constructed two datasets of individual, household, and community characteristics taken from the 2000-2001 and the 2005-2006 Enquête Intégrale sur les Conditions de Vie des ménages (EICV; Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey), which allowed us to compare the situation before and after the abolition of primary school fees established in September 2003. (The objectives of the EICV are to provide information on poverty and living conditions in Rwanda and to monitor changes over time as part of the ongoing monitoring of the Poverty Reduction Strategy and other government policies. In Rwanda, the EICV is a nationally representative household survey and is carried out once every five years, with EICV1 having been carried out over twelve-month period in 2000/2001 (6420 households) and was repeated with slight modifications in 2005/2006 (6900 households). The content of the EICV2 questionnaire is broadly similar to that of the previous survey.) This period also marks the return of political stability in Rwanda and of positive socioeconomic performance, factors that are important for a successful implementation of education policies (see [9, 10]). We first present a theoretical elaboration of the constraining and enabling factors for the school attendance of girls and boys in primary education. This is followed by a brief introduction to the reconstruction of the educational system in Rwanda, as well as subsections on data, methodology, and selected variables. We then present and discuss the results of the modelling. We end the paper with our conclusions and several policy implications.

2. Barriers to and Inducements for Primary School Attendance

The assumption that poor parents/child caretakers are responsive to reductions in school costs can be linked to various socio-economic theories. Departing from the home economics model and the human capital framework (see [11–13]), it can be argued that poor parents/caretakers make a tradeoff between the direct and indirect costs of schooling and the benefits of child labour for the child and the family. (We refer to all reproductive and productive work of children.) Admassie [14] highlighted that uninterrupted school attendance reduces the time the child has for work at home or in the labour market.

Even moderately poor parents with land to work or a business to run keep their children at home instead of hiring external labour (see [15]). In such cases, the opportunity costs of time spent at school are high. In this approach, poverty and a lack of financial resources are seen as barriers to school enrolment and ongoing attendance. The number of hours that children work determines their school attendance: children who work long days on tea plantations or in brick factories cannot attend school (estimate for Rwanda: 400,000 child workers, of whom 120,000 were involved in the worst forms of child labour and 60,000 were domestic workers (see [16])), while children who do domestic or productive work for only a short time each day, or who work seasonally or only when needed, can. (ILO defines child labour by the effect it has on the child. In brief, the work or activities done by children should not interfere with their education or harm their physical or mental health (see [17]).) Besides, parents in subsistence-oriented rural communities often think that it is more important to involve children in economic activities and equip them with the basic life skills for future survival than send them to school for formal education (see [14, 18]).

The absence of a demand for skilled labour, particularly in rural areas, contributes to this and has been identified as a contextual labour market condition that influences the educational decisions of parents (see [12, 19, 20]).

The assumption that poor parents need to be encouraged to send their daughters to school is related to the gendered division of labour within the household and to adverse cultural practices in society and the labour market (see [12, 19, 21]). Girls are given domestic chores because their parents want to train them to become good future wives and mothers. Persistent discrimination against girls may also mean that parents, particularly in rural areas, do not attach the same value to educating their daughters as they do to their sons (see [21, 22]). Girls leave the family earlier than boys to marry, after which the fruits of their labour go to their families-in-law. Investments in the education of girls also give lower returns in a labour market where women earn less than men (see [20]). Thus, besides poverty, labour market conditions, gender roles, and cultural practices can also be barriers to enrolment and attendance.

The number of siblings and the sibling position of a child within the household can also inhibit ongoing school attendance, as a result of resource dilution (see [12]) and sibling complementarity (see [15]). Unless there is increased income, the addition of another child results in less real income per household member: the share for basic needs such as food and clothes in the available income per child increases at the expense of the financial means available for education (see [23, 24]). This can imply that one or more children have to drop out or are kept away from school to enable a brother or sister to enrol. Instead of going to school, these children do domestic chores, work in the family business, or are sent out to work. The larger the number of siblings, the higher the probability that a child enrols later, repeats classes, and/or drops out earlier (see [23]). The presence of young children in households has a negative effect on attendance of older children. Conversely, attendance of school-age children is higher if the household has members between 14 and 18 years of age (see [12, 25]). It also turned out that especially girls suffer from sibling complementarity. The presence of older sisters in one’s sibling group has a particularly strong positive effect on schooling, indicating that these older girls are withheld from school to free up or generate resources for their younger siblings’ education (see [26]).

Another barrier is the lack of parental support: children living in households without their natural parents are more often deprived of this support (see [27]). There is evidence that orphans and foster children are less likely to be enrolled in school than children who live with their biological parents (see [28, 29]). Thomas [30] confirms this finding for Rwanda and also reports that the extent of schooling deprivation of orphans depends on their family relation to the caretakers, the household type (single or double headed), and the gender of the household head. These relationships are rather complex. Orphans, for instance, are more disadvantaged in a household headed by a couple than in a single-headed household, contrary to the situation of children who live with natural parents. Taking care of children below primary school age is supposed to be an impediment to the school enrolment of particularly full and maternal orphans (see [30]). Case and Ardington [31], Evans and Miguel [32] also concluded that there is a substantial decrease in school participation after the death of a parent and that the death of the mother is more detrimental than that of a father, as male-headed household will more often rely on children for household chores. The impact of household type and gender of the household head on children’s education achievements is again partly linked to poverty, as female-managed households have less resources than households managed by a couple or male head (see [33, 34]).

However, it can also be linked to effects of inter-generational education concern (transmission of resources) and the gender aspect therein. Educated parents understand the importance of schooling and are more willing to allocate resources for the education of their children. According to Glick and Sahn [35], mother’s education has a positive impact on the education of daughters, while father’s education favours the education of both sons and daughters. Thus, the presence of both parents in the household as well as having educated parents promotes the school attendance of the children.

The poverty index may not be a sufficient indicator of the purchasing power of a household, as in many African societies transfers between relatives frequently help poor families to overcome their financial problems. In sub-Saharan Africa, fosterage and the extended-family system redistribute resources across families in ways that buffer educational inequality (see [23, 36]).

School attendance is also linked to other factors, such as place of residence, availability and accessibility of schools, and quality of education. Parents consider low-quality education a waste of time (see [13]), while large distances to school can be a constraint particularly for very young children and girls (see [4, 37, 38]). There are differences in school attendance between rural and urban children (see [1]). These effects, however, relate to wider rural and urban differences, such as educational level of parents, labour market conditions, and household income (see [20, 39]). To get a clear picture of the barriers to primary school attendance, to explore those who profited of free education and to identify deprived groups of children, geographical and community variables as well as socio-economic and cultural variables at household level must be taken into account.

3. Reconstruction of the Educational System

Rwanda’s achievements in the field of enrolment in primary education are remarkable. Years of unrest and civil war, which culminated in the 1994 genocide and massive population movements, left Rwandan society disrupted and the country’s infrastructure destroyed or heavily damaged (see [40, 41]). The people, and particularly the children, were severely traumatised (see [42]).

After 1994 the new government immediately decided to make the reconstruction of the educational system a spearhead of policy. Schools had to be built or rebuilt (only 648 of the country’s 1836 schools were still operational) and teachers had to be trained and reintegrated, as many teachers had been killed, were now living abroad as refugees, or were displaced within the country. It was estimated that more than half of all qualified primary school teachers were unavailable (see [43]). In addition, the population had to be convinced that schools were safe places again. A large number of Rwandan schools, although financed by the government, are linked to religious institutions, in particular the Roman Catholic Church (see [4, 41]). During the massacres, people had believed that schools and churches were safe havens, but mass killings had occurred in those places.

Finally, special attention had to be paid to the many vulnerable children who had lost one or both parents. (Prevalence of HIV/AIDS also added to this situation.) Rwanda has one of the world’s highest rates of orphanhood (see [30, 44]). It was estimated that 85,000 households were headed by a child, 90% of them girls, when the hostilities came to an end (see [43, 45]). As more men than women were killed, fled the country, or became prisoners accused of participating in the killings, the number of female-headed households increased. For the children in such households, going to school was often not an option, given the financial constraints and household chores they had to do, which included regular trips to prison to feed their confined parents (see [46]). In 2000, of all children of primary school age (7–13 years), slightly less than 40% had only one or no parents at home (see [4]).

By gradually increasing the budget for education to 25.6% of total spending in 2001 (however, the share allocated for primary education decreased from 70% to 45 % in favour of tertiary education during the same period), the government was able to reconstruct the educational sector so well that it has been praised by international institutions such as the World Bank and UNESCO. Net enrolment in primary education exceeded 90%, gender equity in this enrolment was nearly accomplished, and the deprivation of orphans was drastically reduced (see [4, 43]). With regard to survival to the end of the cycle, Rwanda’s performance is respectable: its estimated 73 percent compares well with the rate in other low-income countries and with its own record of 44 percent in 1990-1991. Yet this rosy situation is unlikely to persist, given the exceptionally high rate of grade repetition in the system—about 34 percent in 2000-2001, or more than three times that of a decade earlier (see [4]).Over 2000 schools were operational, although only half of them could be called “permanent structures.” The percentage of qualified teachers was expanded substantially, but double shifting at schools was necessary to meet the demand for education; consequently, the teacher pupil/ratio was high and increasing.

The Rwandan government and its principal development partners in the education sector (UK, USA, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and Germany) concluded that extra efforts were necessary to achieve MDG 2 and to improve the quality of education. According to the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2002), 27% of children of primary school age were not attending classes regularly. Completion rates for primary education were below 50% and considerably fewer girls than boys took the final examinations (see [22, 43]).

To improve access to education, the New Constitution (which was adopted in 2003) made education at the primary level free and mandatory for all children. Primary school fees of RWF 300 (RWF 300 per term is just less than $2 per year ( 537 in Oct. 2003), a small sum compared to the cost of a school uniform and educational material ( )) per term were abolished and replaced by a capitalisation grant to the schools, and several pilot schemes started to provide school lunches and run school farming programmes to encourage households to enrol their children. In 2002, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) launched a school canteen and food-for-education programme in food-insecure districts in the southern and eastern provinces. In collaboration with the government and several donors, this programme provided meals to 160,000 pupils for 4 years and gave 28,800 girls in grades 4 through 6 a monthly take-home ration of vegetable oil. The sale of this oil was expected to cover school costs and increase school attendance by girls (see [47]).

Several ministries set about tackling the issue of the inequality of girls and orphans in school attendance. For example, the Ministry of Local Government, Information and Social Affairs, together with UNICEF and the Ministry of Education, formulated the National Policy for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children (NP-OVC), which emphasised the integration of OVCs and gender issues as important policy targets in development programmes, the national budget, and poverty reduction strategies (see [48]). Special funds for genocide victims made it possible to improve the living conditions of this section of the population.

Despite the progress, the quality of the primary school system was far from perfect. According to the IMF [49] in its 2003 country annual report, the quality of primary education in Rwanda suffered from a shortage of qualified teachers, a heavy curriculum, and a lack of appropriate educational material. The availability of schools also allowed room for improvement (see [4]).

4. Data and Methodology

The 2000 and the 2005 Integrated Household Living Conditions Surveys (hereafter EICV) conducted by the National Institute of Statistics for Rwanda provide sociodemographic data on the members of 13,320 households (a household generally consists of a group of people living in the same accommodation and recognising one person as its head; it may include related and unrelated members and range from a single individual to multiple families) and on the households’ services and amenities. According to Megil [50], the EICV is approximately self-weighting within a stratum. The basic weight for each sample household was equal to the inverse of its probability of selection (calculated by multiplying the probabilities at each sampling stage).

The sampling frame of cells within each stratum had been ordered geographically in a serpentine manner before the segments were selected systematically with probability proportional to size (PPS) where the measure of size for each segment/cellule was based on the number of households from the sampling frame; sample households are selected at the second stage within each segment/cell (see [51]).

The dependent variable in our analysis (children in the age category 8–14 years who had not yet completed primary education at the time of the survey) was taken from these two datasets. (The official entrance age for lowest level education in Rwanda is 7 years. The structure of Rwandan education system is 6-year primary cycle, a 3-year common basic program (TC-lower secondary) cycle, a 3-year upper secondary cycle, and a 4-year higher education cycle in most fields. As the question regarding attendance was asked on previous 12 months, during the survey, the 7-year-old children for primary enrolment were 8 years and the 13-year-old children for grade 6 of primary level were 14 years old during the surveys period. ILO [16] reported that the minimum age for apprenticeship is 14 years in Rwanda.) The children were identified by “age,” “highest level of education attained” and “having or not attended school during the 12 months preceding the survey.” (We did not exclude children who had missed only some classes.) Of the 11,199 cases appropriate for our study, 50.4% were collected during the 2000 survey and 49.6% during the 2005 survey. Only 2% (228) of the target children had already completed primary school (the 2% (119 cases in 2000/01 and 109 cases in 2005/06) who completed primary school were excluded in our analysis because some of them were attending secondary school (when our analysis focused on primary or dropped out after completing primary school). The decline in completion from 119 in 2000 to 109 in 2005 is maybe due to a strong increase in enrolment because this is similar to the Boockmann [17] estimates for Tanzania), 89.9% (10,268) were still attending primary school, and 8.1% (931) had not attended school during the 12 months preceding the survey.

As the objective was to explore who profited from the free education policy introduced in September 2003, a separate analysis was made for 2000/01 and 2005/06, respectively before and after the free education policy. Besides the combined set was used to check if the changes between the two years were significant by including interaction effects with the variable year of the survey.

A logistic regression analysis was carried out to verify the underlying reasons for not attending school. The model describes the log odds that a child aged 8–14 had attended school in the year preceding the EICV of 2000 or 2005. It presents the relative influence of the independent variables on the odds of being attending primary school: a negative β coefficient means that the odds are reduced. The data available for our analysis did not allow the inclusion of quality of the school in terms of educational materials or quality of the teaching staff (only data on the quality of the school premises were available) as a barrier to school attendance, but distance to school was taken into account as a geographic factor. Place of residence was used as an indicator of school facilities and the returns (labour market conditions) on education costs. To measure the differential crowding-out effect of having younger siblings for boys and girls we constructed a combined variable of gender and sibling position, bearing in mind that children without siblings could be a mixed group of foster children, afterthoughts, the only child or the only surviving child.

Although the data also contains information on the number of hours spent at household chores, we did not include that variable in the model to avoid endogeneity. It is plausible that to keep a child away from school and putting them to work for several hours a day is basically one decision made by the parent.

5. Descriptive Analysis of the Research Population

Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics of the independent variables which start with the variables at community level (place of residence and distance to school), followed by variables at the household level and then variables at the individual level. Table 1 presents children who have or have not been to school during the 12 months preceding the surveys according to year of the survey. Rwanda is a predominantly poor, rural society: most people live in scattered homesteads in the hills and agriculture is their main activity. These features are reflected in the characteristics of the children in the datasets: four out of five live in the countryside, and two out of three are member of a household of cultivators, fisher folk, or cattle keepers. Thirteen percent of school-age children from rural areas were out of school in 2000 and 12% of those coming from a farm. Between 2000 and 2005, however, these percentages decreased partly as a result of the abolishment of fees and a massive program of poverty reduction. Children in urban centres are privileged compared to children in rural areas in terms of the availability (particularly concerning secondary, higher education and diversity of primary education) and quality of schools and diversified future job opportunities. The better endowed schools are in the capital. According to the World Bank [4] Report on Education in Rwanda, children in half of the rural households have to walk for more than 30 minutes to get to school; in urban centres, this applies to only 20% of households. The bank experts emphasised that the differences are even more pronounced within provinces.

Variables 2000/01 survey 2005/06 survey Observations Not attend school (%) Observations Not attend school (%) Total 5.649 678 (12) 5.550 253 (5) Residence Rural 4.749 613 (13) 4.395 200 (5) Other urban centre 378 41 (11) 562 30 (5) Kigali 522 24 (5) 593 23 (4) Distance to school <1/2 km 2.402 235 (10) 2.965 136 (5) 1/2–2 km 1.887 235 (12) 1.572 61 (4) >2 km 1.360 208 (15) 1.013 56 (6) Occupation household head Farm activities 5.106 634 (12) 2.170 95 (4) Nonfarm activities 543 44 (8) 3.380 158 (5) Poverty* Nonpoor 2.060 166 (8) 2.190 86 (4) Poor 1.075 129 (12) 1.112 48 (4) Extremely poor 2.514 383 (15) 2.248 119 (5) Financial transfers received None 1.623 189 (12) 951 44 (5) RWF 5000 (>$10) 1.420 159 (11) 2.925 117 (4) Education of household head None 4.167 515 (12) 1.976 78 (4) 1–5 years primary education 512 60 (12) 1.836 63 (3) Primary school + 970 103 (11) 1.738 112 (6) Presence of parents in household Both 2.756 282 (10) 3.264 94 (3) Father only 259 49 (19) 211 19 (9) Mother only 1.620 196 (12) 1.299 62 (5) Neither 1.014 151 (15) 776 78 (10) Age 8–10 years 2.293 85 (4) 2.492 43 (2) 11-12 years 1.627 171 (11) 1.576 64 (4) 13-14 years 1.729 422 (24) 1.482 146 (10) Gender and position among sibling Male with old sibling 908 127 (14) 992 62 (6) Female with old sibling 984 123 (13) 975 43 (4) Male with old and young sibling 1.533 171 (11) 1.561 53 (3) Female with old and young sibling 1.577 150 (10) 1.605 58 (4) Male with young sibling 59 9 (15) 25 5 (20) Female with young sibling 136 26 (19) 19 6 (32) Male without sibling 224 38 (17) 181 16 (9) Female without sibling 228 34 (15) 192 10 (5) Time spent on chores per week <14 hours 4.535 462 (10) 3.266 148 (5) >14 hours 1.114 216 (19) 2.284 105 (5) *The poverty line was calculated on the basis of the level of household consumption including purchases but also on consumption from other sources like own production and payments received in kind. The approach used follows standard international practices by adjusting for differences in prices faced by households (price deflator) and by taking into account the household composition (household size measured in terms of adult equivalents). Given the prices in January 2001, the poverty line was set at RWF 64,000 ($120) per adult per year, and an extreme poverty line (below which households could not even afford the basic food consumption basket, even without spending anything on nonfood items, was RWF 45,000 ($85) per adult per year. For January 2006 prices these poverty lines translate into RWF 90,000 ($170) and RWF 63,500 ($120) per adult per year, respectively (see [52]).

We divided distance to school into three groups: nearly half of the children in the total survey sample lived in communities (a community generally means a “cell” in the Rwandan administrative structure, because the question on distance to school was put to the coordinator of the cell. A cell (Akagari in Kinyarwanda) is the smallest administrative unit in Rwanda and hence closest to the people) with at least one primary school (distance 0.5 km or less), a second lived in communities with at least one primary school in a neighbouring community (0.5–2 km distance), and a third had more than a 30-minute walk to school (<2 km). The nonattendance of children living at a distance to school of more than 2 km was 15% in 2000 and 6% in 2005. Rwanda is a low-income country: it had a per capita GDP of $200 at the beginning of the millennium. More than half of the population lived on an income below the poverty line; according to the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (see [53, 54]), these Rwandans consumed less than RWF 250 (<$50 cents) per adult equivalent per day. The extremely poor had to get by on less than RWF 125 (<$25 cents) in 2000 and RWF 175 ($30 cents) in 2005 per day. In these poor households, over 70% of total consumption is spent on food, which illustrates the lack of means left for clothes, housing, school fees, and uniforms (up to RWF ) or health insurance cards (RWF 1000 approximately less $2 per family member). School attendance has gone up in each category between 2000 and 2005, but particularly in the category of extremely poor. Solidarity between family members in Rwanda is high, as shown by the large number of households that had received transfers in cash or kind during the 12 months preceding the surveys. For the two periods, the households of 70% of the children had received assistance from outside. Nearly half of the households had received transfers (transfers have three components: transfers in cash, in food, in other goods, and miscellaneous. The transfers are coming from parents, son/daughter, brother/sisters, spouse/wife, in-laws, other family, or not related persons. The senders are living in the same countryside, Kigali Capital, other centers, other countryside, adjacent countries and few of them are living in other African country or in rest of the world. Most of the transfers are annually or monthly and only few of them are on a daily or weekly basis) amounting to more than RWF 5000 (less $10) per year. (RWF 5000 is just less $10 per year ($1 = RWF 537 in Oct. 2003).) Remarkably, nonpoor households received assistance more often than extremely poor households, and the value of rural to urban flows was on average less than a quarter of those in the opposite direction. The impact of the genocide and the prevalence of HIV/AIDS among the adult population are reflected in the large number of children with no parents (16%). Siaens et al. [29] stated in 2003 that as the country has emerged out of conflict, the AIDS pandemic has begun to take a heavy toll of human lives, contributing significantly to adult mortality. The children with no parents were either full orphans or lived with relatives for reasons other than the death of their parent(s). Fostering out children in order to enable them to go to primary school is not a common practice in Rwanda, like in some countries in West Africa, and most of them will be orphans. They are expected to be more deprived from education than children in other households. The variable presence of parents in the household together with the educational level of the head of the household was used to test whether girls and boys benefit differently from educated parents/caretakers. More than half of the children came from households with an uneducated head. In a quarter of the cases, the head had at least completed primary school. Fifteen percent and ten percent of double orphans were not at school for 2000 and 2005 while the dropout was 10% and 3% for nonorphans in the same years. Finally, the older the child, the higher the probability to drop out, as is clearly illustrated in the distribution according to three age groups. 6. Results We built separate models for the 2000/01 and 2005/06 datasets, because the two years characterised the periods before and after the introduction of the free education policy in Rwanda. To find out whether children with or without siblings had gained significantly higher chances of attendance over time, we combined gender and the position among siblings in the household as one independent variable. This helped to establish whether the position among siblings has a differential impact on attendance for boys and girls. An evaluation of other attendance constraining factors during the period 2000–2005 allowed us to identify groups of children who profited from the free education and those who need specific attention of the government to fully achieve MDG 2. We expected negative effects of the presence of younger siblings, living on a farm and of a large distance to school. Positive effects on education—according to the literature—could be, living in urban areas, educational level of the household head, and income transfers from relatives. However, some of the constraining and enabling factors turned out not to be significant in their contribution to the school attendance and were dropped from our final model presented in Table 2. The factors that did not show up are, residence area, education level of the household head and his/her occupational status. Even after controlling for distance to school, we expected a positive effect of living in urban areas (and especially in the capital) rather than rural areas, because urban labour markets are more diversified and offer a better return on investments in educating one’s children. However the models show that children living in Kigali do not have higher odds ratios than children from rural areas. The same holds for the educational level of the head of the household, or his/her economic activities. We expected that people with a better education would be keener to send their children to school, like parents who do not work in the agricultural sector. However, the results of all these analyses turned out not to be statistically significant. Variables in the equation 2000/01 survey 2005/06 survey Shift B S.E. df Sig. Exp(B) B S.E. df Sig. Exp(B) Child of nonpoor family (Ref. Cat.) 2 0.00 2 0.01 Child of poor family −0.44 0.13 1 0.00 0.65 −0.08 0.19 1 0.69 0.93 Child of extreme poor family −0.75 0.11 1 0.00 0.47 −0.46 0.16 1 0.00 0.63 Father and mother present (Ref. Cat.) 3 0.00 3 0.00 Father only present −0.71 0.18 1 0.00 0.49 −1.17 0.27 1 0.00 0.31 Mother only present −0.11 0.11 1 0.29 0.89 −0.40 0.18 1 0.03 0.67 Neither −0.40 0.17 1 0.02 0.67 −1.74 0.22 1 0.00 0.18 Male with old sibling (Ref. Cat.) 7 0.14 7 0.00 Female with old sibling 0.19 0.14 1 0.18 1.21 0.42 0.21 1 0.04 1.53 Male with old and young siblings −0.02 0.14 1 0.92 0.99 −0.07 0.21 1 0.74 0.93 Female with old and young siblings 0.14 0.14 1 0.32 1.15 −0.17 0.21 1 0.42 0.84 Male with young sibling −0.30 0.41 1 0.47 0.74 −1.71 0.57 1 0.00 0.18 Female with young sibling −0.57 0.28 1 0.04 0.57 −2.10 0.55 1 0.00 0.12 Male without sibling −0.24 0.25 1 0.34 0.78 0.55 0.33 1 0.09 1.74 Female without sibling 0.06 0.26 1 0.82 1.06 1.23 0.38 1 0.00 3.41 Distance less 0.5 km (Ref. Cat.) 2 0.00 2 0.08 Distance 0.5–2 km −0.19 0.10 1 0.07 0.83 0.25 0.16 1 0.13 1.28 Distance higher than 2 km −0.40 0.11 1 0.00 0.67 −0.19 0.17 1 0.26 0.83 8 to 10 years 2 0.00 2 0.00 11 to 12 years −1.09 0.14 1 0.00 0.34 −0.82 0.20 1 0.00 0.44 13 to 14 years −2.14 0.13 1 0.00 0.12 −1.86 0.18 1 0.00 0.16 Constant 4.00 0.19 1 0.00 54.75 4.71 0.26 1 0.00 111.48 Hosmer-Lemeshow , , for 2000/01 and Hosmer-Lemeshow Test , , for 2005/06. The right hand column shows whether the differences over time are significant at the 5% level. The idea that income transfers between family members promote school attendance is not confirmed by our analysis. The results are not significant and the odds ratios in both 2000/01 and 2005/06 are close to 1. We checked whether households with school-aged children received more transfers than others, but again the effects were very limited. Transfers help to alleviate the worst poverty in general, but were not used specifically to have children attending primary school. To investigate the robustness of the final model with respect to possible interaction effects, we tested the interaction effects of gender and presence of parents, gender and poverty, and gender and distance to school. None of these showed up as significant in the model. To test the hypothesis that the introduction of free education in 2003 in Rwanda did lead to improved school attendance of the poor in particular, the right hand column of Table 2 shows whether the parameters are significantly different between the years. The constant in each model reflects the starting point for the 2000/01 and 2005/06 surveys in our reference category of nondeprived boys aged 8–10 years from nonpoor, complete families, with older sibling(s) and living at a distance to school of less than 0.5 km away. The Exp(B) of the constant gives this category’s odds of attending primary school. The odds of attending school for boys in this group are 112 to 1 in 2005. Also in 2000, most of the boys in this group went to school, although their odds were lower (55 to 1) compared to 2005. The other variable’s Exp(B) give the odds ratios for categories that deviate from the reference category. Multiplying these by the constant gives an idea of their odds of attendance. Table 2 shows that in 2000 compared to the reference category, coming from a poor or an extremely poor family reduced the odds of attending school, the ratios are 0.646 and 0.471, respectively, for children from poor and extremely poor families making their odds 36 to 1 and 26 to 1. In 2005 (Table 2) the odds for children of poor families are equal to those from non-poor families. The odds for the children from extremely poor families were also better in 2005; their odds ratio in that year is of the same magnitude as the ratio for children from poor families 5 years before. School attendance of the poor and very poor clearly improved in the period 2000–2005. Despite the policy to pay specific attention to vulnerable children and particularly orphans, the models show that the attendance of children who had lost both parents did not improve between 2000 and 2005. The odds ratios are smaller in 2005. Orphans even lagged significantly further behind other children in 2005 than in 2000. The gender of the child combined with its sibling position did have a significant impact on school attendance, and again these effects are stronger in 2005 than in 2000. Being the youngest in the household has the expected positive effect at least for girls, although the odds ratio is not significant in 2000, but it is in 2005. Being the oldest has the expected negative effect on school attendance for both boys and girls but more so for girls than for boys. The effect is much stronger in 2005, the odds of attending school being 172 to 1 for girls that are the youngest and 14 to 1 for those being the oldest in the family. Despite the successful efforts of the Rwandan administration to promote gender equality in all aspects of society, girls are still valued and treated differently from boys within the family. The negative effect of distance to school was estimated in 2000 with a ratio of 0.669 (37 to 1) while its significance disappeared in 2005. However, for the distance 0.6 to 2 km the improvement in attendance between 2000 and 2005 was significant, pointing at the impact of the reconstruction of school buildings policies. In order to access secondary education, one needs to complete primary education. The last variable in our model shows that this is still problematic in Rwanda. Drop-out rates rise sharply after the age of 10, which can be seen from the very low odds ratios of attendance of 11 to 12 year olds and particularly 13 to 14 year olds. For the latter group, the ratios are 0.118 for 2000 (6 to 1) and 0.155 for 2005 (18 to 1). The test whether variables had significantly different effects between the years shows significant improvement in attendance for both the poor and the very poor and for those living at the medium distance from school. The more negative outcome for children from one-parent families and orphans is only significant for the orphans. The stronger negative effect of having young siblings in 2005 also differs significantly from the effects in 2000, for both boys and girls. Females without sibling have clearly improved in attendance. The conclusion here is that although the government has been very successful in getting children to school, it is less successful in keeping them in school until they have completed their primary education. There might be several explanations for this. It could be a cohort effect, as the higher age group might have left school at a time when the conditions for enrolment were less favourable. Returning to school is harder than staying at school. If this is true, the problem will fade away. However, it could also be that the higher economic value of older school-aged children (an effect not captured by our other variables) leads to a different tradeoff between school and gainful employment. This tradeoff could be influenced by the quality of the educational programme and the added value in the labour market of a completed primary education. This issue calls for further research. 7. Conclusion, Discussion, and Policy Implications In the first few years of the new millennium, the Rwandan government continued to increase the enrolment in primary education of boys and girls in general and of girls from poor families in particular. Our results show that the effort has been very successful for the majority of primary school-aged children. Nevertheless, the objective had not been achieved fully by 2005. Foster children and orphans are still being discriminated against. Besides, increased attendance at younger ages to achieve MDG 2 is not sufficient, as some older boys and girls are kept away from school to work in or outside the homestead. Extra policy measures and programmes are necessary to facilitate the completion of primary education by children above the age of 10, with specific attention paid to the oldest girls in the family and foster children. Poverty leading to resource dilution when family size increases and sibling complementarity are probable causes for keeping children away from school and making them work. The elimination of school fees was a first step, but clearly not a big enough one. The estimated costs (2002) of RWF 11,000 ($21) per child per year were still a great deterrent to enrolling a child in school. Even the Ministry of Education (see [55]) recognised that the main financial support at that time for children attending school is the family (90.6%), followed by the state (4.5%) and then other organisations. Subsidies for school uniforms for children from extremely poor and incomplete families could be a policy option. Experiments in Kenya illustrated that giving school uniforms to poor children reduced school absenteeism (see [32]). School uniforms could perhaps be bought by schools and loaned to families for a nominal fee. It should be discussed whether the advantages of compulsory school uniforms are more important than achieving full school enrolment and completion in a country that has so many poor parents/caretakers. The World Food Program (WFP) started the school feeding program (SFP) in Rwanda in 2001. In 2005, the Rwanda SFP was targeted to 12 drought-prone, food-insecure districts. Attendance rates in WFP-assisted schools increased from 73 percent to 95 percent in 2006 (see [56]). From January 2008 to December 2012, WFP extended its program targeting 290,000 students in 300 schools, at a cost of $4.5 million per year. In response to government’s policy shift to include free education to nine years of basic education (9YBE), WFP has raised its target to 350,000 across the country. Nutritious food is provided as a daily cooked meal in primary schools, and starting in 2010 WFP also provided a monthly take-home ration of vegetable oil for host families of orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) (see [57]). The Rwandan government aims at the implementation of a general school feeding programme by 2012, when the WFP support (the government partner in feeding school children) will be phased out. The assessment of local production for school meals in Rwanda is the first step towards having parents and local communities taking over WFP school-feeding programmes (see [58]). The latest news on this topic, however, is that—after the ending of the WFP program—schools will ask parents to pay RWF 4700 (around $8) for a period of 3 months or the authorities will ask a support from residents for the meals distributed at school if the program is to continue (see [59]). As our analyses showed that the very poor have lower odds of attendance, requesting a contribution of parents might introduce a new barrier for this group in particular, and finding ways of exempting them from charges might be called for. Enforcing the laws on compulsory primary education and the prohibition of child labour and apprenticeships by children under the age of 15 who have not completed primary education could possibly also contribute to achieving MDG 2. The education situation of orphans has deteriorated in Rwanda. This is a problem that will not disappear when the victims of the disturbing events of the 1990s have grown up as long as people continue to fall victim to HIV/AIDS. Particularly orphans of parents who died of this disease are stigmatised and receive less community support (see [27]). A grant given to the orphan him- or herself to cover the cost of uniforms and books or as reward for actually attending school would be preferable to providing the orphan’s household with general financial support. There are also clear limits to what policies might achieve. Several authors have concluded that when enrolment in primary education is close to universal, as it is in Rwanda, the enabling factors hardly contribute to even higher attendance rates, although they might play a role in the completion of primary school and therefore also in the enrolment in secondary education. Bold et al. [8], Behrman and Skoufias [60] found this to be the case for Kenya and Mexico. In the evaluation of PROGRESA (PROGRESA is a Mexican government program introduced in August1997 as a key component of its poverty alleviation strategy. PROGRESA is an acronym for “Programa de Education, Salud y Alimentacion” or the “Education, Health and Nutrition Program” [61]) in Mexico, Coady [61] found that this programme increased the enrolment rates by 0.74–1.07 percentage points for boys and 0.96–1.45 percentage points for girls. However, our analyses showed that constraining factors are of importance to specific groups and policies may be devised to target these groups in particular to increase their efficiency. Yet we are aware that achieving universal completion of primary education depends on more than educational policies. We agree with Buchmann [12] that a lack of added value in the labour market of a completed education might negatively affect the tradeoff between the costs and returns related to older pupils. Education is not just an instrument, but also an outcome of poverty reduction and economic development. Further research into the driving factors for completion rather than just attendance is needed. Acknowledgments The authors would like to express their appreciation to Hewlett Foundation and Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research for their financial support (Grant no. W07 40 202 00), to the anonymous reviewers for their stimulating comments, and to Jeremy Raynor for language editing.

Nursery School Program in Rwanda

A starting point of promoting peace and Protestant values

Proverbs 22:6 says “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old, he will not turn from it”. The understanding and analysis of this verse call parents and all bodies involved in the parental system to come together and unite their efforts for a quality education and the promotion of the individual, as the individual is important for both the Church and the State.

Education is the key factor in a holistic development – from early childhood education to adult education. In Rwanda, education is seen as the basis, especially in the period after the genocide, in which the Rwandan government, together with the churches, invested a great deal in education: For example, the Rwandan Government has initiated the education system for all, which means that every child can go to school and has the right to free education.

The nursery school program

The nursery school program was initially initiated in churches, especially in Anglican and Pentecostal churches. Every local church has a nusery school there to teach the young people; to train them to remember verses in the Bible, but also to teach them how to be polite at home, in the church and elsewhere. The programme is also supported by the government. It mobilizes parents to build a school and pays a teacher to teach the children. Difficulties arise where parents who are really poor cannot send their children to school due to limited resources. If you look closely at these cases, you often find that these parents are widows or victims of HIV/AIDS. Another problem is that nursery schools are not everywhere: There are about three to four institutions in a sector. A child coming from a remote location a few kilometres away has a hard time reaching school. In such a case, both the parents and the child must fight, because the parents must then employ a person to accompany the child and provide sufficient food if the child gets hungry. The churches are trying to support Christians and promote the attitude of joining cooperatives and associations where small sums of money can be saved, but the road to solving the problem is still long. The church is a real help here, as there are churches even in remote places where there is no village or sector administration.

What children are benefitting from nursery schools?

In Rwanda, studies were carried out and children who go to nursery school and children who do not were compared with each other. The results clearly showed that the children attending nursery school were able to react more quickly and that their social behaviour in dealing with classmates and parents was more pronounced. Children who do not go to nursery school were much more reserved, less self-confident and more biased in social contacts.

Promoting the culture of peace and Protestant value

In Rwanda peace is not something you simply have; you have to practice it. Teaching children about peace and Protestant values is therefore a very important foundation of the Church and the nation. The problem is to find trained teachers. Where can one acquire the corresponding knowledge? Who is responsible for this important issue? We all know that a group of people who make themselves strong and audible and who mobilize others can make a difference. The Rwandan Government is doing a good job of launching various programmes to mobilise people, but the need is still high. Protestant churches are therefore called to work together to build sustainable peace and evangelical values.

Rev Emmanuel Mugiraneza

Anglican Church of Rwanda

Nursery School Scholarship Project

Rwanda Children’s Hope supports 27 children out of 92 nursery students in 2017. There are still a lot of more children who need regular support.

Samaritan International School is designed to help poor children who cannot pay full tuition fee. However, without enough tuition fee paid by students, it is difficult for school to manage their finance to maintain quality education. In order to get out of this financial issue, IHCM creates Poultry local business which is to provide finance as well as nutrition to children. Rwanda Children’s Hope also support this local business through Nutrition Project.

29th March 2016, granted from Japanese Embassy, Samaritan International School opened. This school is designed for primary school with six class rooms; however, IHCM has been supporting working vulnerable women since 2014 by providing nursery service in Karangazi. Nursery school helps working mothers especially widows who do not have sufficient income sources but depending on farming in small cultivating land. IHCM plans to build three more class rooms and facility for nursery school in the future.

>>>Donate Now

* We got some reports that an error of payment occurs. However, you can try some times and the payment can be completed in many cases. We are sorry for this inconvenience…!

nursery — School Guide — Kigali Moms and Dads

Grade Level

Nursery 1 – Primary 4

Primary 5 – Primary 6

What after School/Extracurriculur Activities are available? We have an after school club which is offered to children who have older siblings studying in P5 and P6. This club features a range of exciting activities from Arts and Crafts to Drama and Sports

Average student to teacher ratio: 13:1 in Nursery, 30:1 in Primary with additional Assistants for Special Educational Needs and P1 class

What makes your school unique? Our school, which is supported by the British NGO A Partner in Education, is a low fee school that blends the Rwandan curriculum with international methodology. We have an International Education Advisor based at the school to support the continuous development of our staff and learners’ progress. Our Nursery section is exemplary with outstanding staff who provide an enabling and stimulating environment for our small children to learn through play and exploration. Our primary section supports the holistic development of children and particularly emphasizes critical thinking and developing a reading culture in learning.

How do you support children with different learning styles or needs?

Our school has disabled access meaning that no child is excluded from studying here. All of our teachers have been trained in Inclusive Education. In 2016, the teaching staff completed an Online Training programme which focused on supporting children through differentiation in the classroom. Teachers tailor the curriculum to the needs of their learners and know how to offer extra support through 1:1 intervention, group activities or creating harder/ easier tasks as necessary. We have a full time SEN teacher to support children with additional needs and a SEN assistant who helps in class to support individual children as needed.

Any other information you would like to include?

Umubano Primary School, in Kabeza, Kigali follows the Rwandan curriculum, specialising in English, ICT and Quality Early Years provision. It is an inclusive environment with highly trained teachers from all over East Africa. The school is linked to APIE, a UK based charity which provides financial support and capacity building in the form of an International Education Advisor who is based at the school, ensuring that high quality is maintained and the standards continue to rise.

We have Nursery classes for 3-4 year olds, 4-5 year olds and 5-6 year olds. Primary level starts for children who are 6 years old and we have all levels from P1 to P6. Our classes have small class sizes and good adult:child ratios.

Hope Haven Rwanda

The Nursery School program at Hope Haven School focuses on developing social, emotional, behavioral and physical skills as well as academic readiness.

Our main goal in teaching young children is to provide them with rich experiences that develop self-awareness, self-confidence and make learning fun.

We have three class levels; Baby (age 3-4), Middle (age 4-5), and Top (age 5-6). Student-teacher ratio is 45:2. Every teacher is certified and provides instruction in both English and Kinyarwanda.

At each level, learning is through play where children learn to think, reason, and develop important skills using puzzles, tablets, toys and books.

Students attend class from 7:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m., Monday-Friday.


Why Dove Montessori School?

We are a family school and have an open-door policy for parents to partner with us to support their child. Our laboratory-like classrooms are set up based on the Montessori educational philosophy and our program draws from the North American Montessori Center’s curriculum. We have a diverse and experienced team of dedicated teachers from around the world.

Find out More →

Information about keywords nursery school in rwanda

Below are the search results of topic nursery school in rwanda on Bing. You can read more if needed.

The article has been edited from various sources on the internet. I hope you found this article useful. Please share this article if you find it useful. Thank you very much!

Keywords people often search for about the topic Visit Kindergarten school in Musanze – Rwanda

  • video
  • sharing
  • camera phone
  • video phone
  • free
  • upload

Visit #Kindergarten #school #in #Musanze #- #Rwanda

Watch some other videos of topic nursery school in rwanda on youtube

So you have finished reading the Visit Kindergarten school in Musanze – Rwanda | nursery school in rwanda topic article, if you find this article useful, please share it. Thank you very much.

See also  Đi Ăn Đồ Vỉa Hè Garland -Dallas-Texas | 10611 Garland Road Dallas Tx 22725 People Liked This Answer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *