The renewed debate surrounding Wesley Girls Senior High School and the participation of Muslim students in certain religious practices has once again stirred national conversation.
But beyond the loud exchanges, emotional reactions, and social media advocacy lies a deeper question Ghana must confront: How do we balance student rights with the established identity of mission schools?
Wesley Girls, widely known for its academic excellence and discipline, did not attain this reputation by accident.
Like many mission schools across the country, it was built on a clear Christian foundation.
Methodist values have shaped its character, discipline, and culture for decades.
Many parents choose mission schools precisely because of this firm identity and the orderly environment it creates for learning.
At the same time, Ghana’s Constitution guarantees freedom of worship. Muslim students, like all students in public schools, have a right to practice their faith.
The real issue, however, is not whether these rights exist but how they function in a school whose policies are rooted in a particular religious tradition. Before admission, schools provide prospectuses and handbooks that outline their rules and expectations. Parents are not left uninformed. In fact, Ghana’s educational landscape offers a variety of senior high schools, from Christian and Islamic mission schools to fully secular institutions, allowing families to choose environments that best match their children’s needs.
This tells us something important: the controversy today is not the result of Wesley Girls suddenly altering its rules. Instead, it reflects a long-standing gap in our national policy direction on how mission schools should balance their established identities with the broader rights of students in a public education system.
For years, the Ghana Education Service (GES) and mission schools have operated under a partnership model that gives each side a degree of authority.
While GES oversees national standards, mission schools retain their founding ethos, which forms part of their credibility and culture.
This dual-governance arrangement requires clarity. Without it, schools will continue to be caught in delicate positions, and students will remain at the center of unresolved tensions.
From a development communication perspective, this discussion needs less confrontation and more thoughtful dialogue.
It should not be framed as Christians versus Muslims or as rules versus rights. It should be seen as a matter of policy coordination: a question of how Ghana can harmonize constitutional freedoms with institutional autonomy in a way that promotes order, respect, and academic focus.
The core purpose of school must remain at the center. Schools exist to educate, to develop character, to nurture discipline, and to create environments where young people can thrive. While religion is a deeply personal part of a student’s identity, a school also needs coherence. No institution can function smoothly if every rule becomes negotiable or if its identity becomes uncertain.
Parents have a responsibility to choose schools whose values and expectations match their children’s needs. Schools have a responsibility to be transparent about their rules.
And the GES has the responsibility to provide clear guidance that prevents confusion and protects both students and institutions.
At the heart of it all, Ghana needs a consistent national framework on faith practices within mission schools.
Without one, controversies like this will keep resurfacing, each time widening divisions and creating misunderstandings.
The way forward is not outrage or blame. It is clarity, communication, and respect. We can protect the rights of students and the integrity of schools at the same time, but only if we commit to addressing this issue through policy, not passion.
By Joseph Coffie Selorm Ahiabenu
