When 'Tutam' and 'Wantam' chants disrupt school culture

Political-style chants are increasingly finding a place in school compounds, turning ordinary reactions to principals' decisions into public expressions of approval, dissatisfaction and, at times, a verdict on school leadership.

When teachers and learners are pleased with a principal's decision, they may erupt into chants of "Tutam!" But when displeased, they may retreat into silence or respond with "Wantam!" — language that echoes the slogans, campaign rhythms and public demonstrations associated with Kenya's political arena.

The trend raises an important question: are school compounds becoming miniature political arenas where leaders are celebrated when decisions are popular and reminded of their perceived shortcomings when they are not?

Schools have always had their own traditions of cheering, singing, clapping and expressing collective excitement. What appears different is the adoption of language that resembles political mobilisation, complete with short, memorable slogans that communicate approval or rejection.

"Tutam" can function as a rallying cry of satisfaction, while "Wantam" can convey displeasure with a principal's leadership or decisions, depending on the context in which the chants are used. Such expressions may begin as jokes, playful banter or spontaneous reactions. Yet repeated often enough, they can become part of a school's informal political vocabulary, shaping how teachers and learners communicate their feelings about authority.

A principal occupies a position of considerable responsibility. Decisions about discipline, staff welfare, school finances, resource allocation, timetables and learner management can attract both support and criticism.

The emergence of political-style chants offers a glimpse into how school communities may be responding to this authority. Rather than expressing disagreement privately, some may use collective chants to make their feelings publicly known. When a decision attracts "Tutam," the chant may signal satisfaction; when "Wantam" follows an unpopular decision, it may serve as a humorous warning, a protest or a challenge to the principal's leadership, depending on the circumstances. However, a chant is not a reliable measure of the entire school community's opinion, since some people may join for entertainment while others remain silent because they are uncomfortable speaking out.

The contrast between chanting and silence is particularly interesting. A vocal response makes dissatisfaction visible, but silence is harder to interpret — it may indicate disappointment, fear of confrontation, indifference or simply a preference not to participate.

School leaders therefore need to avoid treating cheers as automatic endorsements or silence as unquestioning obedience. A healthy school culture allows teachers and learners to communicate concerns through respectful, structured channels rather than relying solely on public reactions. Equally, a principal should not dismiss every chant as indiscipline, since behind the humour may lie a genuine concern that deserves attention.

The spread of political-style slogans into schools raises questions about the boundaries between public political culture and educational life. Schools are places where learners develop citizenship, critical thinking, self-expression and respect for differing opinions. These values are not served by suppressing every form of dissent, nor are they strengthened when disagreement degenerates into intimidation, ridicule or personalised hostility.

The challenge is to distinguish harmless expression from conduct that disrupts learning, undermines legitimate school procedures or humiliates members of the school community. Teachers and learners should be able to question decisions respectfully, while principals should be prepared to explain their actions, listen to concerns and correct mistakes where necessary.

For principals, the emergence of "Tutam" and "Wantam" may offer an opportunity to reflect on how decisions are communicated and received. Popularity cannot be the sole measure of effective leadership — some necessary decisions may be unpopular, particularly when they involve discipline, accountability or the fair enforcement of school rules. Conversely, a leader should not assume that holding formal authority automatically guarantees confidence, trust or cooperation.

The more sustainable approach is to build school cultures in which decisions are explained, rules are applied fairly, grievances are heard and disagreements do not become personal battles.

The appearance of political-style chants in schools may be playful on the surface, but it opens a wider conversation about authority, accountability and freedom of expression in educational institutions. A school should not become a political rally, but neither should it become a place where nobody dares to question authority. The real test of leadership is not how loudly a community chants when it is happy, but whether it can disagree respectfully, speak honestly and still work together for the good of the school.