Rwandans, and possibly everyone else, are very sensitive when it comes to education. Mention of the subject brings out some of the rawest reactions, such as the responses to a recent article by a fellow columnist in which he concluded that higher education was a waste of money, a heist in which universities were cheating both students and teachers. A quick search using a combination of those key words will bring to rest any doubt about how serious and sensitive Rwandans are about their education.

At the time this colleague was focusing on higher education, another event that would shed light on the status of education at the lower level was taking place. For the month of August, close to 50 high schools from across the country were taking part in what was named the National Young Entrepreneurs Debate.

After this initial stage, the best performing schools from the provinces that make up the country would descend on Kigali for a final selection phase. Unfortunately, only 16 schools participated. Of these, a disproportionately larger number came from the City of Kigali, which was represented by the ‘elite’ schools of: King David Academy, Lycee de Kigali, Kagarama Secondary School, Apred Ndera Secondary School, Fawe Girls Academy and Green Hills Academy.

While in Kigali, the participants would benefit from the tutorship of "debate experts,” after which two schools, Green Hills Academy (also the defending champions) and Gashora Girls Academy would come up top and earn the right to go mano a mano at the Kigali Serena Hotel.

As an annual competition, a different theme is usually up for debate each year. Because entrepreneurship is in vogue, it was the theme for this year’s debate with the topic for discussion being "Savings as a Key to Entrepreneurship” all of which is part of the efforts to "Help the youths [to] find solutions to problems that affect them,” according to its organisers.

Indeed, a glance at the diverse source of support (institutional and possibly financial) for the competition from the Rwanda Governance Board, the Work Force Development Authority, the Bank of Kigali, and even Coca Cola, for instance, reveals the extent to which the ambitions of its organisers are perceived to be an important value addition to the education that these young boys and girls are receiving.

A few points are worth noting, however. I have noted above the first observation, albeit in passing. This has to do with the fact that urban area schools are disproportionately represented in the competition. The second point, also related to the first, is that ‘elite’ schools tend to do better than the ‘ordinary’ schools.

Based on these observations, one is likely to conclude that the quality of education in the urban areas is better than that in the rural areas. While that argument may possess a grain of truth to it, I’m more inclined to think that the main reason they appear to perform better has to do with how we have defined, and decided to measure, education quality.

Which is a sort of segue to my third point. It is incontestable is that the ‘elite’ schools are very good at training their students how to speak "very good” English. Indeed, this was on display during the debate that featured Green Hills Academy and Gashora Girls Academy.

It is highly likely, therefore, that the command in the use of the English language is a reliable predictor of success in these debate competitions. It is similarly likely that the Achilles heel for the ‘ordinary’ schools in general and rural schools in particular and their desire to shun such competitions is explained by the fear of being "embarrassed” on the national stage. 

During the debates, moreover, the students appeared to be in competition to exhibit superior command of the English language rather than on placing emphasis on a well-thought-out, logically consistent, argument. 

Don’t get me wrong. Command of the (British) Queen’s Language is without a doubt a positive attribute. However, seen in this regard it becomes an exclusionary tool, unwitting as it may be on the part of the organisers. 

Dialogue over debate

In a tactic that was intended to distract or derail the speaker, a member of the opposing team would rudely interrupt demanding a "point of order” to which the speaker would equally impolitely bark back "denied.” It was callous and downright mean. Intended as a disruption, it was usually an interjection that did not consider the point being put forth by the speaker.

Instead, such antics only revealed that the students had successfully picked up the command of the foreign language without equally adopting its requisite sensibilities for common decency.

Taken together with the points raised earlier, this ought to be a teachable moment. Perhaps a shift away from debates to dialogue is what is needed. Dialogue would inculcate in our students values of mutual respect as they seek enhanced understanding and mutual empathy for the positions held by others. Unlike debates, it would not create opponents or enemies who must be defeated or verbally buried.

lonzen.rugira@gmail.com