The events of the past few weeks concerning leadership and governance in mission schools in Ghana bring to light the intricate and delicate relationship between the Church and Education policy.
The details provide important lessons for educational governance and leadership at all levels.
The complex relationship between public mission schools and the church has been highlighted by this case, and I discuss the issue through a public faith-based school governance and public policy lens.
I have been intrigued by the level of interest in the issue of religious intolerance and discrimination in public faith-based schools.
The tensions associated with the discussions only show that the traditional roles and governance of public mission schools, as we know them, may be changing.
Apparently, the National Peace Council has facilitated the signing of an MOU by the Conference of Managers of Education Units (COMEU) to encourage religious tolerance in public faith-based schools. However, contentions still exist.
A lawsuit has been filed, and the Supreme Court has had to step in.
I guess it is time to address the policy ‘elephant in the room’: who really has the final say in public faith-based schools?
Role faith-based schools
In addition to academic training, schools of religious parentage have always been known for their role as excellent disciplinarians and an avenue for religious indoctrination.
Incidentally, that same reason accounts for their relatively higher patronage by parents as compared to non-faith-based public schools.
By their origins, the church’s income and efforts were instrumental to the establishment of mission schools.
Hence, religious parents were comfortable sending their wards to mission schools because they were sure that their wards would receive religious training from the church, in addition to excellent academic standards.
Statistically, mission schools make up a large percentage of Grade A high schools in Ghana, which is a significant contribution to the education landscape in Ghana.
It was, therefore, strategic that the government came in to support the funding and running of the mission schools to increase access to secondary education, as an extension of the Free Compulsory Universal Basic Education (FCUBE) policy, detailed in the Ghana Education Act (2008).
Complexity governance
The governance of public faith-based schools is highly complex.
Having religious affiliations, these faith-based schools are expected to navigate the State- church conundrum, ensuring that both sides’ interests are satisfied.
Surprisingly, this delicate relationship has worked tolerably well for some time now.
However, with the introduction of the Free Senior High School (FSHS) Policy and an increase in public access to these mission schools, tensions have heightened concerning whose influence is stronger in these peculiar public schools.
One thing that seems to stand out is that as time has passed, the influence of the church in faith-based schools has waned, due to their public status.
The devolution of authority by the government to these schools through the school boards has historically ensured a balance of governance representation of both the Church and the government.
The Diocesan Bishop was usually appointed as the Chairman of the School Board in Methodist schools, and school chaplains in most mission schools are usually priests from the Church.
Additionally, there was always an effort to ensure that the headmaster or headmistress was a member of the school’s religious affiliation, and religious practices such as morning prayers and religious services were common.
In addition to daily routines, there were also physical relics of religion within the school environment, eg, the Crucifix, Rosary and Bible were commonly seen in classrooms and administrative offices of Catholic schools.
These measures were taken by the mission schools to ensure that the values of the Church were upheld in daily activities within the school.
This has been the relationship for several years now, although there are some challenges with this arrangement. Some school leaders have reported several challenges in public faith-based schools, including governmental influence, the politicisation of education policy, and the inadequacy of resources to cater to the increase in enrolments due to free access for all qualified students.
So clearly, all is not well at home, and any government official or school leader who wants to succeed needs to quickly understand the intricacy of the relationship and manage expectations strategically.
More recently, governance in faith-based schools has become a case of ‘he who pays the piper, calls the tune’.
In this scenario, the Minister of Education appears to exert a strong influence on what happens within the schools, calling for respect for the human rights of non-Christian students in public mission schools.
And who can blame him?
The government pays teachers and staff and ensures the smooth running of the schools.
On the other hand, the founding Church of the mission schools is also not amused.
In their view, the school was established with a deeply rooted religious mandate.
Finding middle ground
The fact is, without the Church, there will be no school, and without the government, schools may collapse under high operational costs.
The church must recognise that by becoming a public school, its powers in mission schools are diluted, and so decisions are expected to be bound by government policy.
On the other hand, the government needs to recognise and respect the deeply rooted influence of the church in public mission schools and, where possible, strategically align interests.
Stakeholder engagement, which involves identifying and consulting with the various stakeholders of the mission schools, is highly recommended in this case.
Ideally, the government may want to adopt a ‘hands-off’ approach to the case and allow the governing structures that have been established within the schools to function.
Bringing all parties who affect or are affected by decisions and activities of the mission schools to the table to discuss and possibly negotiate expectations may yield better results.
With a deep understanding of the mutually beneficial relationship between the Church and the State in the governance of public mission schools, it becomes obvious that the declarations and threats by government officials may not be necessary.
The writer is a PhD student,
Department of Educational Policy and Leadership,
University at Albany (SUNY).
