Rwanda's Ministry of Education has introduced significant reforms to the way teachers are evaluated and scored for their annual performance contracts — known as imihigo. Starting from the 2025–2026 academic year, organisations including STARS, IPA, and Guide will play a formal role in the evaluation process, replacing a system that many teachers felt was open to favouritism and personal bias from some school directors.
📋 Key Changes at a Glance
- External organisations (STARS, IPA, Guide) now co-evaluate teacher performance alongside school directors
- Teacher imihigo scores now split equally: 50% classroom performance + 50% student learning outcomes
- Five components assessed: Attendance, Lesson Preparation, Teaching Method, CAMIS Usage, and Student Progress
- Arriving 15 minutes late is now officially recorded as an unexcused absence under the new rules
- Surprise classroom inspections must happen at least once per week per teacher
- Teaching observation scored on a 0–3 scale across 6 dimensions
- Legal basis: Prime Minister's Order No. 033/03 of 12/11/2024
Why the System Is Changing: Ending Favouritism in Bonus Scores
For years, teachers in Rwanda have raised concerns that annual performance scores — the imihigo ratings that determine who receives a yearly bonus — were being awarded by some school directors based on personal relationships and favouritism rather than actual classroom performance. Teachers felt that no matter how hard they worked, their score could be influenced by how well they got along with their director.
The new system directly addresses this complaint by bringing in independent external organisations — STARS, IPA, and Guide — to participate in the evaluation process alongside school principals. This means that a single director can no longer unilaterally decide a teacher's performance score. The evaluation is now a shared responsibility, with checks and balances built in at multiple levels.
This reform is significant. The annual bonus — paid based on imihigo scores — can represent a meaningful portion of a teacher's income, and concerns about its fair distribution have been a long-running source of frustration in the profession. The new framework is designed to make the process more transparent, objective, and credible.
The Five Components of Teacher Evaluation
Under the new system, a teacher's imihigo score is built from five distinct components. Each is assessed differently and by different evaluators. Here is how each component works:
Component 1: Attendance (Kwitabira Akazi)
Attendance is tracked daily by the school principal, who records one of four statuses for each teacher: Present, Absent, Excused (absent with a valid reason), or Unexcused (absent without reason). The percentage of days attended is calculated at the end of each term, averaged across terms, and converted into a score out of 100.
Additionally, classroom attendance is verified through surprise spot checks conducted at least once per week per teacher. During these checks, the school principal notes whether the teacher is actively teaching, whether they are in the correct classroom, and whether they are absent without explanation.
Component 2: Lesson Preparation (Gutegura Amasomo)
Every teacher is required to have a complete, up-to-date lesson plan prepared before they begin teaching. The principal checks lesson plans through unannounced weekly inspections and records whether a lesson plan exists, whether it is complete, and the date it was reviewed — all of which is entered into the CAMIS digital system.
The score for lesson preparation is calculated by counting the number of weeks in which a lesson plan was found to be present and complete, averaging across terms, and converting that figure into a score.
This component has generated considerable discussion among teachers. Some express concern that teachers with heavy timetables — those covering eight or more class periods — are being held to the same lesson plan standard as colleagues with lighter loads, which they argue is unrealistic given the additional administrative reports they are already required to submit regularly.
"Preparing a lesson plan for every single period is not simple. If it gets done, it will be done just to tick the box — and the actual quality of teaching will suffer."
Others worry that a teacher who prepares lessons but does not present them in a particular format will receive a zero for that component, even if their teaching is effective. These are concerns the Ministry will need to monitor closely as the new system rolls out.
Component 3: Teaching Method (Uburyo bwo Kwigisha)
Teaching method is evaluated once per term through a formal classroom observation conducted by the school principal. Six dimensions of teaching practice are assessed during this observation:
| Dimension Assessed | What the Evaluator Looks For |
|---|---|
| Lesson objectives | Are clear learning goals set at the start of the lesson? |
| Lesson delivery | Is the content taught clearly and effectively? |
| Student assessment | Does the teacher check student understanding during the lesson? |
| Student engagement | Are students actively motivated and participating? |
| Classroom culture | Is there a respectful, orderly learning environment? |
| Support for weaker students | Does the teacher give extra attention to struggling learners? |
Each dimension is scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 means no competence demonstrated, 1 means still developing, 2 means satisfactory, and 3 means excellent. The scores from each term are averaged to produce the final teaching method score for the year.
Component 4: CAMIS Usage (Kwitabira CAMIS)
CAMIS — Rwanda's digital school management system — is now a formal part of every teacher's evaluation. Teachers are expected to regularly use CAMIS for recording attendance, lesson plans, and student data. Compliance is monitored by both NESA (the National Examination and School Inspection Authority) and MINEDUC (the Ministry of Education), who track usage data directly from the system.
This component accounts for part of the 50% classroom-performance score and reflects Rwanda's broader drive to digitise school administration and create a more transparent, data-driven education system.
Component 5: Student Learning Outcomes (Iterambere ry'Imyigire y'Abanyeshuri)
The most significant structural change in the new system is that student learning outcomes now account for 50% of a teacher's total imihigo score. This is assessed through what is known as "learning gains" — the measurable improvement in student performance over time, tracked and verified by NESA and MINEDUC.
In practical terms, this means that a teacher's bonus is now directly tied to how much their students actually learn and improve. A teacher whose students show strong progress will score well in this component regardless of other factors; a teacher whose students stagnate — whatever the reason — will see their score affected.
- 50%— Classroom performance: attendance + lesson preparation + teaching method + CAMIS usage
- 50%— Student learning outcomes: verified by NESA and MINEDUC through learning gains data
Who Evaluates What: A Clear Division of Responsibility
One of the most important features of the new framework is its clear assignment of evaluation responsibilities to different actors, reducing the power of any single evaluator to unfairly influence outcomes.
The school principal is responsible for evaluating attendance, lesson preparation, and classroom teaching method. NESA and MINEDUC are responsible for evaluating CAMIS compliance and student learning gains. External partner organisations — STARS, IPA, and Guide — bring additional independent oversight to the process.
This multi-layered approach is designed to prevent the kind of director-level manipulation that teachers have historically complained about, while also raising the overall quality and consistency of evaluations across different schools.
Teacher Concerns: Real Questions That Need Answers
Despite the clear logic of the reforms, teachers have raised a number of legitimate concerns that the Ministry and its partners will need to address as implementation proceeds.
The 15-minute lateness rule has been particularly contentious. Teachers point out that there are many genuine reasons a person might arrive slightly late — road conditions, family emergencies, or even a school director who deliberately adjusts the official start time to create grounds for penalising staff. The concern is not unfounded: some teachers report that certain directors have in the past changed official reporting times as a way of exercising control over staff they wish to discipline or disadvantage.
The lesson plan requirements have also raised questions about workload. A teacher covering eight class periods daily is expected to produce eight complete lesson plans — in addition to grading, reporting, CAMIS data entry, and other administrative duties. Teachers argue that this volume of paperwork risks shifting the focus from actual teaching quality to documentation compliance.
"Teachers feel they are being asked to do too many things at once. When everything is tied to performance scores and the bonus, the pressure becomes enormous — and it can actually harm the quality of teaching rather than improve it."
There is also concern about what happens when a teacher prepares excellent lessons but their students still struggle — due to factors entirely outside the teacher's control, such as poverty, hunger, family instability, or learning disabilities. Tying 50% of a bonus to student outcomes without accounting for these contextual factors could unfairly penalise teachers working in the most challenging environments.
What Teachers Should Do Now
Regardless of the ongoing debates, the new system is in force from the 2025–2026 academic year. Teachers who want to protect their scores and bonuses should take the following practical steps immediately.
First, arrive on time — every day. The 15-minute rule is now law, and there is no grace period. If you know you are likely to be late on a particular day, inform your principal in advance and obtain written authorisation for the delay. Second, prepare and file your lesson plans consistently and completely. Even if the workload feels heavy, missing lesson plans will cost you directly in your score. Third, familiarise yourself with CAMIS and use it regularly. NESA and MINEDUC are tracking usage, and gaps will show up in your evaluation. Fourth, focus on your students' progress. Since learning outcomes account for half your total score, strategies that visibly improve student performance — targeted revision, differentiated instruction, regular formative assessment — are now also strategies that directly protect your income.
A System With Promise — If Implemented Fairly
Rwanda's new teacher performance evaluation framework represents a genuine attempt to make the system fairer, more objective, and more closely tied to what actually matters: student learning. The involvement of external organisations, the use of CAMIS data, and the shift away from a single director's subjective judgment are all positive developments that address real and long-standing grievances in the teaching profession.
But the success of any evaluation system depends entirely on how it is implemented. If the 15-minute rule is applied rigidly without fairness, if lesson plan requirements become a paperwork exercise divorced from real teaching, or if student learning gains are measured without accounting for socioeconomic context, the system risks creating new forms of frustration even as it eliminates old ones.
Teachers, school leaders, and policymakers all have a role to play in making this work. News Within will continue to follow the rollout of these reforms and report on how they are being experienced in schools across Rwanda. If you are a teacher with questions, concerns, or experiences to share, write to us at newswithinblog@gmail.com.
Post a Comment