Doctoral Dissertation
Community Participation in School Management Toward Educational
Outcomes in Ghana: From the Perspective of Relational Trust

KAZURO SHIBUYA

Graduate School for International Development and Cooperation
Hiroshima University

September 2020

Community Participation in School Management Toward Educational
Outcomes in Ghana: From the Perspective of Relational Trust

D195344
KAZURO SHIBUYAA Dissertation Submitted to
the Graduate School for International Development and Cooperationof Hiroshima University in Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirement for the Degree ofDoctor of Philosophy in Education
September 2020

Table of Contents
Abstract.................................................................................................................................. vi
Acknowledgement.................................................................................................................. x
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms....................................................................................xii
List of Tables....................................................................................................................... xiii
List of Figures...................................................................................................................... xiv
Chapter1: Introduction............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of problems.................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Research objectives.......................................................................................................2
1.4 Significance of the dissertation.....................................................................................2
1.5 Research context........................................................................................................... 3
1.6 Dissertation structure.................................................................................................... 3
Chapter2: Literature review on community participation in school management.................5
2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................5
2.2 Educational outcomes and school management........................................................... 5
2.2.1 Educational outcomes............................................................................................ 5
2.2.2 Socioe-conomic status (SES) and educational outcomes......................................6
2.2.3 Attention to school management studies............................................................... 6
2.3

Factors in school management...................................................................................7

2.3.1 Managerial factors................................................................................................. 7
2.3.2 Pedagogical factors................................................................................................ 8
2.4 Actors and underlying theories in school management................................................8
2.4.1 Actors..................................................................................................................... 9
2.4.2 Community.......................................................................................................... 10
2.4.3 Participation and associated theories................................................................... 11
2.4.4 Reciprocal and mutual relationships among school-level stakeholders..............17
2.4.5 Social capital........................................................................................................17
2.4.6 Research gaps in the literature.............................................................................19
2.5 Relational Trust (RT).................................................................................................. 21
2.5.1 Characteristics of RT........................................................................................... 21i2.5.2 Component of RT: role relationships...................................................................22
2.5.3 Component of RT: synchronies in mutual expectations and obligations............ 22
2.5.4 Component of RT: criteria for discernment.........................................................23
2.5.5 Component of RT: reciprocal dynamics between factors in school management24
2.5.6 RT and participation.............................................................................................24
2.5.7 Research gaps in the literature.............................................................................24
2.6 Summary of Chapter 2................................................................................................26
Chapter 3. Community participation in school management in Ghana............................... 27
3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................27
3.2 Schooling system, its historical background, and educational outcomes in Ghana...27
3.2.1 Schooling system................................................................................................. 27
3.2.2 Historical background of establishing public schools.........................................27
3.2.3 Access to basic education.................................................................................... 28
3.2.4 Quality of education from the perspective of the Basic Education Certificate
Examination.................................................................................................................. 28
3.2.5 Pupils’ discipline as an emerging concern.......................................................... 29
3.3 Indigenous geographical communities participation in school management............ 30
3.4 Cultural community.................................................................................................... 31
3.5 Institutionalized school communities’ participation in school management............. 31
3.5.1 Universal Primary Education policies................................................................. 31
3.5.2 Policies and practices in decentralization, deconcentration, and community
participation in school management............................................................................. 32
3.5.3 School Management Committees and Parent Teacher Associations...................33
3.5.4 Challenges in institutionalized community participation....................................35
3.6 Teachers, headteachers, and local government/educational administration...............36
3.6.1 Teachers............................................................................................................... 36
3.6.2 Headteachers........................................................................................................ 38
3.6.3 Local government/educational administration.................................................... 39
3.7 Summary of Chapter 3................................................................................................40
Chapter 4. Conceptual framework and research method..................................................... 41
4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................41ii

4.2 Conceptual framework................................................................................................41
4.3 Research question....................................................................................................... 43
4.4 Choice of research method......................................................................................... 43
4.4.1 Quantitative method.............................................................................................44
4.4.2 Qualitative method...............................................................................................45
4.4.3 Mixed method...................................................................................................... 46
4.4.4 Research method in this dissertation and its rationale........................................ 47
4.5 Data Collection........................................................................................................... 47
4.5.1 Data...................................................................................................................... 48
4.5.2 Data collection instrument...................................................................................51
4.5.3 Negotiating access............................................................................................... 53
4.5.4 Researcher identification..................................................................................... 54
4.5.5 Ethical consideration........................................................................................... 54
4.6 Data analysis............................................................................................................... 54
4.6.1 Quantitative analysis............................................................................................55
4.6.2 Qualitative analysis..............................................................................................55
4.7 Summary of Chapter 4................................................................................................56
Chapter 5. Findings............................................................................................................... 57
5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................57
5.2 Status quo of educational outcomes in the Akatsi South District.............................. 57
5.2.1 BECE................................................................................................................... 57
5.2.2 Enrolment.............................................................................................................58
5.3 Findings about community participation in school management.............................. 59
5.3.1 Institutionalized school communities’ participation........................................... 59
5.3.2 Indigenous geographical communities participation...........................................62
5.4 Findings about the extent to which RT affects educational outcomes and factors inschool management...........................................................................................................63
5.4.1 Factor analysis and reliability test of RT.............................................................63
5.4.2 Descriptive analysis............................................................................................. 65
5.4.3 Correlation among educational outcomes, SES, collective participation and RT.......................................................................................................................................68iii

5.4.4 Regression analysis..............................................................................................71
5.5 Summary and position of case study schools in the Akatsi South District................ 72
5.6 Findings from a case study of schools in relation to learning outcomes................... 77
5.6.1 RT in ‘Professional Capacity’..............................................................................78
5.6.2 RT in ‘Parent, School, Community Ties’............................................................ 79
5.6.3 RT in ‘School Learning Climate’........................................................................ 82
5.6.4 RT in ‘Pedagogical factors’................................................................................. 84
5.7 Findings from a case study of schools in relation to school enrolment..................... 91
5.7.1 RT in 'Professional Capacity'............................................................................... 93
5.7.2 RT in 'Parent, School, Community Ties'..............................................................95
5.7.3 RT in 'School Learning Climate'..........................................................................96
5.7.4 RT in 'Pedagogical factors'...................................................................................99
5.8 Findings from a case study of schools coping with pupils’ discipline as a criticalchallenge......................................................................................................................... 104
5.8.1 RT in 'Professional Capacity'.............................................................................104
5.8.2 RT in 'Parent, School, Community Ties'............................................................105
5.8.3 RT in 'School Learning Climate' and 'Pedagogy Factors'................................. 107
5.9 Summary of Chapter 5.............................................................................................. 110
Chapter 6: Conclusions and discussions............................................................................. 111
6.1 Summary of findings.................................................................................................111
6.2 Contribution to literature...........................................................................................114
6.2.1 RT as ‘harness’ of actors and factors in school management toward educational
outcomes..................................................................................................................... 115
6.2.2 RT as ‘mutual accountability’ among guardians, school communities, school,and government...........................................................................................................115
6.2.3 RT as ‘interplay’ among leadership, participation, and accountability.............117
6.2.4 RT as ‘catalysis’ to make pupils the subject of learning................................... 117
6.2.5 RT as ‘social capital’ that make individuals under diversity and fragility
formulate collectives of community........................................................................... 118
6.3 Implication for the system of community participation in school management......121
6.3.1 The need to formulate RT by matching active headteachers with supportiveiv

school communities.................................................................................................... 121
6.3.2 The need to retain RT as multiple sets of mutual accountability...................... 122
6.3.3 The need to sustain a chain of RT in the existing system of institutionalized
community participation............................................................................................. 122
6.3.4 The need to support pupils as the subject of learning through realizing RT at
both collective and individual level............................................................................123
6.3.5 The need to support fragile individuals and school communities to sustain RT.....
.....................................................................................................................................124
6.4 Limitations................................................................................................................ 125
6.5 Suggestions for further study....................................................................................126
6.6 Concluding note........................................................................................................ 127
Annex.................................................................................................................................. 129
Reference............................................................................................................................ 157v

Abstract

This dissertation aims to reveal how community participation in school management leads toeducational outcomes based on the perspective of relational trust (RT). This dissertation is significant as
it considers the relationships between collectives of school communities and individual households inthe contemporary era where regional and educational disparities are expanding. School management
studies have revealed that it is not evident as to how managerial and pedagogical factors should be
harnessed to yield educational outcomes. Further, school-based management studies have shown thatconflicts, differentiation, and alienation among school-level stakeholders emerged as the result ofcommunity participation in school management. Reciprocal relationships, mutual accountability,
two-way communication, support and accountability between schools and communities, have been
identified as keys to solve these issues. However, research gaps still exist regarding how factors andactors in school management should be mediated to yield educational outcomes. To fill in these gaps, I
adopt the concept of RT, the component of which consist of the role relationships, the synchronies intheir mutual expectations and obligations, and the reciprocal dynamics between factors in school
management.
I chose Ghana as the context of the research; policies and practices in community participation inschool management have been implemented in this country since 1990s. Therefore, it is worthwhile toextract lessons learned from the results of policy implementation in Ghana and share with neighboring
Western African countries where decentralized management policies in education have been introduced
since 2000s. The field of research was the Akasti South District, Volta Region. This district was selected
as one of pilot districts of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) supported project in thefield of community participation in school management. I decided to choose this district owing to thestrong commitment of the District Director of Education to the research and favourable support forcontinuous field surveys. To avoid any interference of the intervention to the research, I selected casestudy schools from non-pilot schools of the intervention. I obtained research permissions of the fieldsurveys from the Ghana Education Service (GES) Headquarter and made necessary feedback to the
district education office, Akatsi South and the GES Headquarter.
I make three research questions based on a literature review: Research Question 1) To what extent
does community participation function in school management?; Research Question 2) To what extent
are community participation, socio-economic status (SES), educational outcomes, and RT related?;
Research Question 3) How is RT realized between actors and in factors of school management togenerate educational outcomes?
viThis dissertation adopted the mixed method with the quantitative analysis of headteacher
questionnaire of 85 public basic schools in the Akatsi South and the qualitative analysis of four casestudy schools through the School Management Committee (SMC) or the Parent Teacher Association(PTA) general or executive meeting minutes; interviews from school-level stakeholders; andparticipatory observation at school visits.
This dissertation reveals the following results. Regarding RQ1, it is found that the approach ofcommunity participation with the principle of representative democracy was flawed owing to thelimited scope of SPIP consultation and delays in the capitation grant disbursement. Instead, community
participation with the principle of consensual democracy is found to be active in the form of the numberof PTA general meeting participants and the amount of PTA funds. This implies that when we analyse
community participation, it is necessary to pay attentions to not only the representative democracy fordecision making in school management, but also the consensual democracy which has played a criticalrole in supporting schools since their establishment.
RQ2 and RQ3 are complementary in a sense that RQ2 addresses the quantitative analysis while
RQ3 concerns the qualitative analysis. Together they reveal how and why RT matters to educational
outcomes and factors in school management. First, contrary to the hypothesis, increased RT did notnecessarily secure the better learning outcomes when collective participation was controlled for. In thisdissertation, to avoid correlations among independent variables, collective participation indicators were
integrated into a composite collective indicator. I would like to interpret this result as follows.
Second, I examine the relationship between RT and learning outcomes. The correlation analysis
shows that teacher-parent RT is negatively related (statistically significant) to the Basic Education
Certificate Examination mean aggregate. This means that the higher the teacher-parent RT is available,
the better the learning outcomes. The qualitative analysis gives some clues as to which factors of school
management RT should be realized to yield learning outcomes. The first qualitative case study sheds
light on why a high-performing school in a rural area has experienced a rapid decline in its learning
outcomes. It is found that the school has suffered from a community divide owing to a dispute over thelegitimacy of chieftaincy. The lack of School communities-school RT affects the extent of collective
participation, which seems to be one of critical indicators of the 'Parent, School, Community Ties' factor.
This failure regarding managerial factors leads to a lack of support for school development, which
affects the pedagogical factors including ‘time for learning’, ‘supplementary resources’ and ‘pupils’
school participation’. This seems to result in a decline in learning outcomes. In addition, the third casestudy shows that the lack of teacher-parent RT is associated with the low extent of pupils’ motivation,
guardians’ support and teachers’ motivation. These are included in the pedagogical factor, whichvii

directly affects pupils’ learning outcomes. These findings contribute to revealing why teacher-parent RT
is related to better learning outcomes.
Third, this dissertation reveals that school enrolment depends on the extent of collective
participation. In the quantitative study, school enrolment is positively correlated (statistically significant)with the collective participation composite variable. This shows that the larger collective participation,
the more school enrolment is available. This seems to be a common sense in urban areas, however, it isimportant for schools in rural areas to sustain or increase school enrolment. Conversely, increasing theschool enrolment is an important strategy for generating more collective participation in the form of
PTA funds, which becomes a driver for school development. The second qualitative case study showsthat one school had sustained or increased school enrolment, while the other school, though in similarrural settings, experienced stagnated school enrolment. The headteacher of the case study school
developed an initiative to address the school’s low enrolment. The school communities responded to theheadteacher’s expectations and mobilized resources for school development in line with their
obligations. Thus, School communities-school RT is realized in the 'Parent, School, Community Ties'
factor, which is equivalent with collective participation, namely, attending meetings and paying for PTA
funds. With such collective participation after realization of the school-community RT, it is possible forthe school and school communities to work towards improving school enrolment. It is also found thatthe existence of headteacher-teacher RT matters in promoting teachers’ engagement with increased
school enrolment. Literature have argued that individual households’ socio-economic status affects theextent of their involvement with school affairs. However, this dissertation reveals that schoolcommunities with less endowed socio-economic status can achieve some extent of collective
participation through realizing RT. This can be interpreted as a survival strategy for fragile individual
households under severe resource scarcity in developing countries to enjoy collective benefits throughthe participation in school communities.
Fourth, this dissertation reveals how pupils’ discipline is affected by each of the school
management factors depending on the realization of RT. The last qualitative case study shows how
divides in geographical communities cause declining ’Parent, School, Community Ties’ factor, which
also results in a lack of the ’Pedagogical factor’, such as decreased motivations for teachers, guardiansand pupils. It is found that these two schools has different levels of RT regarding whether they can avoid
conflicts through dialogues with school-level stakeholders. This case study highlights the significance ofRT among school-level stakeholders on pupils’ discipline.
This dissertation discusses findings from both theoretical and practical perspectives. From thetheoretical perspective, it discusses; 1) how RT links between factors and actors in school managementviii

can yield educational outcomes; 2) how RT occurs as mutual accountability among guardians, schoolcommunities and government; 3) how RT is perceived through the interplay among participation,
leadership and accountability; 4) how RT can make pupils the subject of learning and 5) how RT canbridge individual households and the collectives of the school communities under diversity and resource
scarcity.
From the practical perspective, it discusses; 1) need to formulate RT by matching active headteacherswith supportive school communities, 2) need to retain RT as multiple sets of mutual accountability; 3)need to sustain a chain of RT in the existing system of institutionalized community participation; 4)need to support pupils as the subject of learning through realizing RT at both collective and individuallevel; and 5) need to support fragile individuals and school communities to sustain RT.
Community participation in school management, institutionalized in Western society, has relied on
Putnam (1995)’s social capital theory at the collective level that independent households participate incivil society autonomously, share equal responsibilities, and formulate collectives of institutionalized
community. However, this dissertation contributes to illuminating RT as a new form of social capital,
which enables individual households under resource scarcity and with diverse background to formulate
the collectives of community in a flexible manner. Through participation in the collectives of schoolcommunities, it is possible that RT, which consists of the synchronies in mutual expectations andobligations, has been realized and individual households has multiplied their scarce resources.
Furthermore, the perspective of RT, which this dissertation presents, can show important implications
for community participation in school management mechanism in industrialized countries that havesuffered from system fatigue under diversified society and working modality, and associated widened
disparities among households in terms of involvement with school affairs.

ixAcknowledgement

This dissertation came to the world as the results of support of many people involved in myacademic work. I am grateful to headteachers, teachers and school communities at case study schools
who saved time for interviews, and all the headteachers who answered the questionnaires. I appreciate
the Ghana Education Service to allow me to conduct this study. Especially, Mr. Adovor Yogah, theDistrict Director of Education, and Mr. Clements Katsekpor, the Director of Administration and Finance,
Akatsi South district education office, for their massive support to my field surveys. I really appreciate
Mr. Clements’ dedication to accompany my field surveys and provide deep understanding to thecontextual information and to encourage me to continue this study. I also thank Mr. Bright Dey, GES
Volta Regional education office for providing information in terms of educational statistics in Volta
region.
Many thanks go to Mr. Fred Birikorang and Ms. Junko Nakazawa, Basic Education Division, GES
HQ for their continuous support and inputs to my research. I also appreciate precious suggestions by Dr.
Stephen Adu, who is my former colleague at the Teacher Education Division, GES and has written an
important PhD dissertation in the field of headteacher leadership and community participation in Ghana.
I show my gratitude to the Ghana Statistical Service for providing me the Population and Housing
Census 2010 data in Akatsi South District, which enabled me to calculate socio-economic status data forschool communities.
I am most grateful to my supervisor, Prof. Ayami NAKAYA for her continuous support andencouragement to my work. Her comments always encouraged me to do more to deepen discussions
and contributions to theories and practices. I show my deep gratitude to Prof. Takuya BABA, whotaught me academic rigors and logical sequence in the dissertation. I also thank Prof. Kinya SHIMIZU
for his support and advice to the quantitative analysis. I am grateful to Prof. Jun TAKIZAWA for his
advice to theoretical contribution of this dissertation to the literature. Finally, I owe a lot to Prof.
Kwame AKYEAMPONG for his comments as a Ghanaian who know the context and an experienced
African researcher in the field of education.
I show my appreciation to Prof. Shoko YAMADA who invited me to join a research group to study'African Potentials' which sponsored part of my field surveys (JSPS Kakenhi Grant Number
JP16H06318). I received precious inputs and advices from discussions at this research group which
helped me with discussing RT in a African context. I also show my gratitude to Prof. Mikiko
NISHIMURA for holding a joint session at the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES)
2018 Annual Conference in the Mexico city and inviting me to contribute a book chapter in this field.
xI thank the JSPS Kakenhi Grant Number 17K04627 to sponsor most of my field surveys andacademic work.
Finally, I would like to show sincere appreciation to my wife, Mia and my children, Takashi,
Atsushi, and Yui for their understanding, patience and encouragement to my academic work. I also
thank my mother, Keiko for her continuous support. I dedicate this dissertation to all my family
including the late father, Makoto SHIBUYA

xi

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

BECE

Basic Education Certificate Examination

DA

District Assembly

EMIS

Education Management Information System

fCUBE

Free, Compulsory, Universal, Basic Education

GES

Ghana Education Service

GSS

Ghana Statistical Service

JHS

Junior High School

KG

Kindergarten

PTA

Parent Teacher Association

RT

Relational Trust

SBM

School-Based Management

SES

Socio-Economic Status

SHS

Senior High School

SMC

School Management Committee

SPAM

School Performance Appraisal Meeting

SPIP

School Performance Improvement Plan

xii

List of Tables

Table 1: Correspondence between RT and participation
Table 2: Number of teachers and qualified teachers in public basic and secondary schools in 2015/2016
academic year
Table 3: Research question, data collection instrument, data, and analytical method
Table 4: BECE pass rate rank league table in the Akatsi South District (2013-2017)
Table 5: Descriptive statistics of educational outcomes, socio-economic status, collective
participation, and RT
Table 6: Descriptive statistics of institutionalized participation in school management
Table 7: Factor analysis of relational trust
Table 8: Descriptive statistics of relational trust
Table 9: Results of regression analysis
Table 10: Descriptive statistics of case study schools
Table 11: BECE pass rate rank league table in the Akatsi South District (2013-2017) and the rank of
Schools C and School D
Table 12: Trend of school enrolment of case study schools and their surrounding public basic schools
Table 13: Details of teaching force
Table 14: Headteachers’ backgroundxiii

List of Figures

Figure 1:

Decomposed picture of synchronies in mutual expectations and obligations between
parents and teachers'

Figure 2:

Conceptual framework

Figure 3:

RT between school communities and school at collective participation and between
parent and teacher at individual participation

Figure 4:

Notification letter from the district education office in terms of the capitation grant
disbursement to school accountFigure 5:

SPIP signed by headteacher, SMC chairperson, and circuit supervisor in charge

Figure 6:

Scatter plot between socio-economic status (composite) and BECE mean aggregate in2017

Figure 7:

Scatter plot between Teacher-parent RT and BECE mean aggregate in 2017

Figure 8:

Scatter plot between socio-economic status (composite) and enrolment (primary school
section) in 2016

Figure 9:

Scatter plot between collective participation (composite) and enrolment (primary school
section) in 2016

Figure 10:

Scatter plot between School communities-school RT and collective participation(composite)

Figure 11:

JHS block in danger of collapse due to lack of funds (School D)

Figure 12:

JHS corridor buttressed with a temporal structure (School D)

Figure 13:

School building (School C)

Figure 14:

Piped water facility (School C)

Figure 15:

Structure of how relationships between actors and factors in school management lead to
declined learning outcomes (School D)

Figure 16:

Structure of how relationships between actors and factors in school management lead tosustained learning outcomes (School C)

Figure 17:

A lesson note vetted by the headteacher

Figure 18:

A checklist for submission of expanded scheme works (lesson notes)

Figure 19:

A checklist of weekly teacher attendance

Figure 20:

Outlook of school building (School A)

Figure 21:

Church building under construction (next to school building) (School A)

Figure 22:

ICT lessons planned in the action plan in 2017/2018 (School A)
xivFigure 23:

A purchased laptop computer (School A)

Figure 24:

Outlook of school building (School B)

Figure 25:

KG pupils mixed up in a primary class (School B)

Figure 26:

Hand Wash tank (several were observed in the school compound) (School A)

Figure 27:

Blackboard on the corridor, which shows scores of three groups (red, yellow, green)(School A)

Figure 28:

Lesson with low teacher pupil ratio (School B)

Figure 29:

Classroom occupied with a few pupils and lots of timbers (School B)

Figure 30:

Structure of how relationships between actors and factors in school management lead tosustained school enrolment (School A)

Figure 31:

Structure of how relationships between actors and factors in school management lead to
decline school enrolment (School B)

Figure 32:

Structure of how relationships between actors and factors in school management lead topupils’ discipline (School A)

Figure 33:

Structure of how relationships between actors and factors in school management lead topupils’ indiscipline (School D)

Figure 34:

Conceptual framework (recite Figure 2)

Figure 35:

How RT is realized with children being at the center both at collective and individual
participation

xv

Chapter1: Introduction
1.1 Background
Community support for education has a long history in Africa. Indigenous geographicalcommunities established and supported schools even before the independence, prior to the 1960s and1970s. This was because governments could not establish schools despite the demand fromgeographical communities. Such community school initiatives have been observed in various Africancountries including the Harambee schools in Eastern Africa (Hoppers 2005; Nishimura, 2017; Yamada2014). These schools were a part of community self-help movement to provide educational alternatives
to the mainstream public education offered by the government (Bamattre, 2018). The government
gradually took over such community schools, registered them as public schools, and dispatched theirteachers. The management and control of the schools thus shifted to central government authorities, andthe communities tended to become less actively involved (Essuman 2013).
In the 1990s, various African countries introduced Universal Primary Education policies andabolished school fees. On one hand, this implied to parents and community members that the
government was providing free public education. On the other hand, however, these governments faced
severe resource scarcities and could not provide effective solutions to address the expanded access toschooling. As such, community participation in school management is regarded as instrumental inbringing about educational outcomes and has been institutionalized as a form of school-based
management (SBM) in the context of decentralization (Barrera-Osorio et al. 2009; Bruns et al. 2011; De
Grauwe 2005).

1.2 Statement of problems
Studies into school management have paid attentions to factors in school management. School
effectiveness/improvement studies have identified the characteristics/factors of school management thatcan generate educational outcomes. However, there still exist research gaps regarding how to link
managerial and pedagogical factors towards educational outcome (Bossert 1988). It is also challenging
how to activate these factors in developing countries under severe resource scarcity (Lockheed & Levin
1993).
School-based management studies have highlighted actors in school management. Geographicalcommunities members and guardians have supported school development since their establishment.
Decentralization reforms in education have institutionalized community/parent participation in school
management and have formulated school communities that are composed of people concerned withpupils’ education. Thus, the involvement of geographical communities and guardians in schools has
1changed from them supporting school development to them participating in school management andholding schools accountable to them. As a result, various conflicts, mistrust, alienation anddifferentiation have been observed among school-level stakeholders (Carney et al. 2007; Essuman &Akyeampong 2011; Pellini 2005).
Various attempts have been made to mitigate such complex relationships among school-level
stakeholders. These includes reciprocal relationship (Essuman & Akyeampong 2011), mutual
accountability(Nishimura 2017), two-way communications (Adu 2016; Epstein et al. 2002), social

capital (Edwards 2019; Pryor 2005), and relational trust (RT). RT is a concept proposed by Bryk &Schneider (2002) who believe that it fits the analysis of schooling characterized by inter-dependency.
However, how to generate such relationships among school-level stakeholders regarding factors ofschool management to improve educational outcomes remains unknown.
In the past, at the basic education level, geographical communities, which share the samegeographical boundaries, and school communities were almost identical; they comprise groups ofpeople working together for the purpose of school management (Nishimura, 2017). However, someparents tended to send their children beyond their geographical communities to public or private schools
in urban areas that offered quality education. Therefore, geographical and school communities may notoverlap as they used to, and fragile households will be left behind in marginalized communities,
resulting in expanded educational and regional disparities and the marginalization of society (Edwards,
2019; Ogawa, 2017).

1.3 Research objectives
The objective of this dissertation is to reveal how community participation in school management leads
to educational outcomes, based on the perspective of relational trust.
1.4 Significance of the dissertation
This dissertation is significant for the following reasons. First, this dissertation aims to address how
factors, actors, and their relationship in school management, can be connected through the concept of
RT. More specifically, this dissertation can provide insights into how one can achieve educational
outcomes such as academic performance, school enrolment, and pupils’ discipline by influencing
factors and actors in school management through realizing RT. In particular, pupils’ discipline, or
pupils’ motivation for learning is critical because pupils are the subject of learning and they must be
motivated or encouraged to learn by school communities, teachers and guardians, in order to improveacademic performance and school enrolment.
Second, this dissertation is significant in that it considers the relationships between collectives of2

community and individual households in a contemporary era where disparities are expanding. Affluent
households may leave their geographical communities to find out quality schools for their children as aresult of being able to choose schools based on their own preference. However, fragile households may
be left behind in marginalized communities in low income countries owing to their low socio-economic
status (SES). Thus, during this time of regional and educational disparities, it is critical to determine
how they can achieve educational outcomes despite low SES through collaborative efforts in thecollective spaces of communities.

1.5 Research context
Ghana has a history of both indigenous and institutionalized community participation in school
management. It introduced policies and practices of community participation in education relatively
early compared to other Western African countries. Thus, I chose Ghana, as various lessons from pastinterventions can be extracted and shared with neighbouring countries, which are currently accelerating
policies and practices in this field.
I chose the Akatsi South District in the Volta region as the field of study. This district has been
selected as one of the pilot districts for the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)-supported
community participation interventions. I selected this district because the District Director of Education
was committed to implementing the pilot activity and also showed interests in supporting my research
related to this topic. This guaranteed that I would be able to obtain a satisfactory level of cooperationfrom the district education office for the research. I visited schools that were not selected as targets by
the pilot activity to avoid any influence of the intervention on the research to the largest extent possible.
In terms of mean annual per capita income, the Volta region ranks fourth among the ten regions in
Ghana (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). The Akatsi South District is not one of the deprived districts.
Thus, this district is better off in terms of poverty indicators. According to district officials, the major
ethnic group in the district is the Ewe, which is dominant in the Volta region. In 2013, the Akatsi South
District was positioned 18th among the 25 districts in the Volta region in terms of the Basic Education
Certificate Examination (BECE) pass rate ranking. As of September 2017, the district had 107 basic
schools, comprising 84 Public schools (Kindergarten (KG), 75; Primary, 70; Junior High School (JHS),
40) and 23 Private schools. The district capital, Akatsi, is located approximately 140 km from thenational capital, Accra.

1.6 Dissertation structure
The structure of the dissertation is as follows.
3

Chapter 2. Literature review on community participation in school management
In this chapter, based on literature review, I pay attentions to the following key variables in thisdissertation: educational outcomes, socio-economic status, factors and actors in school management,
and RT. I describe the characteristics and the components of RT, which is a key concept in thisdissertation .

Chapter 3. Community participation in school management in Ghana
In this chapter, I describe community participation in school management in the context of Ghana.
Since the colonial era, Ghana has a history of indigenous geographical communities establishing andsupporting schools. Since 1995, institutionalized school communities’ participation in school
management has been introduced in the form of the School Management Committees (SMCs). I also
describe the situation of headteachers and teachers who are in charge of day-to-day school management.

Chapter 4. Conceptual framework and research method
In this chapter, I describe the conceptual framework and research questions, which stem from theliterature review. I also explain the research method, which reveals the research questions, datacollection instrument, data collection process, data, and data analysis.

Chapter 5. Findings
In this chapter, I aim to describe findings according to research questions in this dissertation by
adopting the mixed method of the quantitative and qualitative analyses.

Chapter 6. Conclusions and discussions
Finally, in this chapter, I summarize findings of this dissertation and its contributions to literatureand implications for the system of community participation in school management. I also refer to thelimitations of this dissertation and present suggestions for further studies to be explored in the future.

4

Chapter2: Literature review on community participation in school management
2.1 Introduction
In Chapter 1, I mentioned the problem statement regarding community participation in school
management and presented the research objectives, the significance of the research and the structure ofthis dissertation. In this Chapter, I conduct a literature review on school management based on thefollowing three areas of studies related to school management: school effectiveness studies, school
improvement study and school-based management study. First, I start with the fundamental arguments
between socio-economic status, educational outcomes, and school management. Second, by reviewing
the school management literature, I make arguments based on the following topics: 1) factors in school
management, 2) actors in school management, and 3) research gaps in the literature. This explains the
key factors and actors involved in school management, and identifies what remains to be addressed as
research gaps. Finally, I pay attentions to the relationships in school management among community
members, guardians, headteachers, and teachers, which have been discussed in the literature. To analysethese relationships, in this dissertation, I adopt the concept of RT asserted by Bryk & Schneider (2002).

2.2 Educational outcomes and school management
2.2.1 Educational outcomes
School effectiveness studies have argued over the definition of ‘school effects’, namely theeducational outcomes of schooling. There are multiple goals attached to schools as social agencies(Bossert 1988). The cognitive aspects of learning, namely, to learn reading, writing and arithmetic, areoften regarded as the key ‘effect’. However, what is treated as an 'effect' in one study may be viewed asa factor that produces effects in another study (Bossert 1988). This suggests that school effects may
differ depending on the values attached to schooling and implies that several school effects exist in acomplicated structure. For instance, Rutter et al. (1979) examined the school effects from theperspective of academic attainment, attendance, delinquency, and unemployment. Fertig (2000) argued
that schools should be allowed to set their own educational goals. Thus, it seems to be necessary to view‘school effects’ from several perspectives, rather than them being limited to learning outcomesmeasured by test scores.
In the quantitative analysis conducted in this dissertation, educational outcomes are defined as themean aggregate of the Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE). BECE results are critical forcommunity members and guardians because they determines whether pupils can proceed to Senior HighSchools (SHS).The BECE also represents the only nationwide comparable data in terms of quality ofeducation at the Junior High Schools (JHS). Although educational outcomes are defined as the mean
5

aggregate BECE in the quantitative analysis model, pupils’ commitment to learning, pupils’ discipline,
and schools’ learning climate are also important educational outcomes. However, in this dissertation I
consider them as intermediate outcomes, which lead to the educational outcomes defined as the BECE
mean aggregate. In the case of primary schools, as there are no comparable data in terms of quality ofeducation, I pay attentions to school enrolment.

2.2.2 Socioe-conomic status (SES) and educational outcomes
Socio-economic status (SES) is defined using the following information, which represents thesocial and economic situation of each individual or the members in a household: level of educational
attainment, income, and occupation. In 1966, the Coleman Report in the United States of America (US)shocked people by showing that households’ socio-economic status is more likely to determine pupils’learning outcomes than school factors. The report aimed to document the availability of equal
educational opportunities among white majority pupils and ethnic minority pupils. The report found thatthe schools were remarkably similar in the way they related to the achievement of their pupils when thesocio-economic background of their students was taken into account. The average white student's
achievements seemed to be less affected by the strength or weakness of their school's facilities, curricula,and teachers than is the average minority pupil's. In other words, the achievements of minority pupils
were found to be more dependent on the schools they attended than those of majority pupils (Coleman
et al, 1966). Although the intention of the report was to reveal the availability of equal educational
opportunities between white pupils and minority pupils, it was interpreted as showing that thesocio-economic status of pupils’ households matters more to their learning outcomes than school inputs.
2.2.3 Attention to school management studies
To refute the conclusion of the Coleman Report, many studies have focused on the argument that‘schools make differences’. There are two streams of research in this area. On one hand, school
effectiveness studies have aimed to answer the following question: ‘what activities will have greater
benefits for pupils?’ Studies in this area tend to focus on outcomes, use data for decision making, andadopt quantitative approaches to analyse school management (Stoll 1996). These studies often adopt thecontext-input-process-output model (Chapman & Sammons 2013; Mortimore et al. 1988; Rutter etal.1979; Schreens 1990; Yu 2007). On the other hand, school improvement studies aim to answer thequestion of ‘how can we make our school better than it is now?’(Stoll 1996). School improvement
studies tend to focus on the process, has an orientation toward actions, and analyse a strategy foreducational changes that enhance student outcomes as well as strengthen schools’ capacity to managechanges from a qualitative viewpoint. Studies in this area also emphasise teacher involvement in efforts6to enact changes and focuses on teaching and learning (Chapman & Sammons 2013; Hallinger & Heck
2011; Hopkins 1996; Stoll 1996) .

2.3 Factors in school management
School effectiveness and school improvement studies have identified both managerial andpedagogical factors in school management for producing educational outcomes. The main actors inschool management are considered to be headteachers and teachers whereas parents and community
members are regarded as inputs for school management (Schreens 1990). Here, I conducted literature
reviews of school effectiveness and school improvement studies and then described the managerial andpedagogical factors in school management.

2.3.1 Managerial factors
In school effectiveness studies, the organizational aspect of schooling is often highlighted and thecontext-input-process-outputs model is often considered (Schreens 1990). The process of school
management involves the following indicators, based on effective school study: educational leadership,achievement-oriented policy, orderly and safe climate, clear objectives, high expectations,monitoring/evaluations of pupils’ progress, continuity and consensus among teachers (Schreens 1990).
Sammons et al. (1995) also described the following managerial characteristics of effective schools:
professional leadership, shared vision and goals, a learning environment, positive reinforcement,
monitoring progress, pupils’ rights and responsibilities, home-school partnership, and a learningorganization.
In the context of developing countries, Heneveld & Craig (1996) developed a conceptual
framework including factors that determine school effectiveness. It identified two managerial factors,‘School climate’ (high expectations of students, positive teacher attitudes, order and discipline,
organized curriculum, rewards and incentives) and ‘Enabling conditions’ (effective leadership, a capableteaching force, flexibility and autonomy, high time-in-schools) (See Annex 1). Parent and community
support were still regarded as supporting inputs and were positioned outside of school management.
Bryk et al. (2010) presented a framework containing the following managerial factors:‘Leadership’, ‘Professional Capacity’, ‘School Learning Climate’ and ‘Instructional Guidance’.
‘Leadership’ is regarded as the extent of the various kinds of leadership demonstrated by headteachers.
‘Professional Capacity’ covers teacher orientation toward innovation and their school commitment.
‘Parent-Community-School Ties’ refers to teacher outreach to parents and parents’ involvement in theschool and ‘School Learning Climate’ includes safety and order in classrooms. In this framework,
7‘Parent-Community-School Ties’ is considered to be one of the managerial factors in school
management, which implied that parents and community members are not just supporting inputs, but area part of school management (See Annex 2).

2.3.2 Pedagogical factors
Schreens (1990) argued that the process characteristics of education are studied at the teacher orclassroom level. They identified the following variables: effective learning time or ‘time on task’,structured or ‘direct’ teaching, opportunities to learn or ‘content covered’, teacher attitudes andexpectations, enhancing student motivation, and the alterable curriculum of the home. Sammons et al.
(1995) asserted that concentration on teaching and learning, purposeful teaching, and high expectations
have the most significant role to play in fostering pupils’ learning and progress and in influencing theireducational outcomes. According to Bryk et al. (2010), pedagogical factors in school management
comprise the following: the ‘Instructional Triangle’, comprising the pupil, teacher, and subject matter;‘Time for Learning’ , ‘Supplementary Resources’ as multiplier; and ‘Dynamics of Student Learning’ ,which is composed of ‘Students’ Motivation to Learn’ and ‘Students’ School Participation’. ‘Students’Participation’ includes regular attendance, a lack of tardiness, few discipline problems, and regularcompletion of homework.
In the context of developing countries, Lockheed & Verspoor (1991) also presented a model of
educational effectiveness containing the following process factors related to pedagogical aspects:
improving curriculum, providing learning materials, time for learning, effective teaching and children’s
learning capacity. Lockheed & Levin (1993) articulated that curriculum, instructional materials, time forlearning, and teaching practices are necessary inputs to promote student learning. Heneveld & Craig(1996) included ‘teaching/learning process (high learning time, variety in teaching strategies, frequent
homework, frequent student assessment and feedback)’ in their conceptual framework as a pedagogicalfactor in school management.

2.4 Actors and underlying theories in school management
In both school effectiveness and school improvement studies, in-school factors, where
headteachers and teachers are mostly engaged, have been emphasized as being critical, whereas
community/parent support has often been regarded as one of the inputs. Bryk et al. (2010) regarded‘Parent, School, Community Ties’ to be inside school management. Thus, community/parent
participation has shifted from being viewed as an input into school management to being one of its
managerial factors. While teaching professionals are the critical agents of change in school effectiveness8and school improvement studies, parents and community members have participated in school
management as its decision-makers in school-based management studies, especially in the context ofdeveloping countries.

2.4.1 Actors
Effective schools appear to have a high degree of school-level responsibility and authority, withaccountability to parents and their local communities (Lockheed & Levin 1993). Thus, it had beenargued that schools should have adequate autonomy and should become the fundamental
decision-making unit in the educational system (Murphy 1991). Based on the school effective studies,
the underlying theories of school-based management (SBM) were autonomy, participation, andaccountability (Bruns et al. 2011). With the background of decentralization reforms, school-based
management has been introduced as a way to delegate the decision making authority to the school level(Bruns et al 2011; Caldwell 2005; Wohlstetter et al. 1994).
SBM

programs

includethefollowingtypes:

administrative-control(headteachers-led),

professional-control (teachers-led), community-control (community members and parents-led), andbalanced-control (Barrera-Osorio et al. 2009). Therefore, actors include headteachers, teachers,
community members, parents, and any other members related to local education administration. In
developed countries, several of these types have existed at the same time. On one hand, SBM is
intended to enhance teachers’ professionalism because it allows teachers to design programs that meetthe needs at the school level (Lockheed & Levin 1993; Hamada 2007). On the other hand, SBM has
been expected to encourage shared decision-making at the school level with community/parent
participation (Hamada 2007).
On the contrary, in developing countries, SBM programs with emphasis on community/parent
participation have been monopolized and have spread out worldwide. Behind the scene, there have been
serious concerns about teachers’ absenteeism and lack of pupils’ time-on-task. Thus, SBM programs indeveloping countries have been intended to make schools and teachers work through oversight from
community members and parents. Community and parent representatives are expected to become
members of the school management committee (SMC), which forms a part of local educational
administration. In this way, they make decisions on school management, oversee it, and hold schools
and/or teachers accountable to them for school performance. The World Development Report 2004
highlighted that there was a short route of accountability between clients (community members andparents) and service providers (schools) (Annex 3, World Bank, 2004). Empirical evidences have also
been accumulated to justify that SBM programs with community/parent participation emphasis produce9improved educational outcomes (Barrera-Osorio et al. 2009; Bruns et al. 2011). This has enabled SBM
programs to spread out to various developing countries.

2.4.2 Community‘Community’ seems to be common terms in the literature, particularly in the contemporary era.
However, the definition of community in the literature and in this study needs to be clarified.
Community has been defined in the literature as follows: geographical community, cultural community,
and school community (Bray 2000; Nishimura 2017; Rose 2003; Taniguchi & Hirakawa 2016). A
geographical community refers to a group of people who reside in the same geographical boundary. A
cultural community includes those who are share the same religions, ethnic groups, gender andgenerations. A school community denotes a group of people who work together for the purpose ofschool management, regardless of their geographical locations or cultural backgrounds. A schoolcommunity is likely to overlap with geographical communities in the case of rural schools, whereparents have to choose the nearest public schools. A school community may expand to include several
geographical communities as a school develops, and may cover a wider range of geographicalcommunities in the case of urban schools (Nishimura 2017; Rose 2003).
Sergiovanni (1994) mentioned that a school community includes the faculties or staff of the schoolorganization, as well as all of the school-level stakeholders, including parents, community members andlocal organizations. According to Essuman (2013), the former are stakeholders in the context of internalschool development, in which administrators work with teachers and all of the other members of staff
who are part of the schools’ day-to-day operation, in order to improve pupils’ learning in a cohesive
manner. The latter include all the members who contribute to the children’s growth, both within andoutside of the school system. Headteachers have dual positions in both types of community as theyleads teaching force in daily school management and also are engaged with wider stakeholders as amember of the school governing body. In this dissertation, I define a school as headteachers andteachers who are in charge of day-to-day school management, whereas I define school communities as
those guardians, community members, and others who are engaged in said school’s governing body.
Historically, there have been ‘community schools’ in Sub-Saharan Africa, which were establishedby geographical communities (Hoppers 2005). However, literature have pointed out that geographicalcommunities are not necessarily homogeneous and consensual to support the development of school in
geographical boundaries (Rose 2003). There are multi-layered communities that include geographicalcommunities members, virtual kinship network, age and gender specific groups, and those who haveenrolled children (Yamada 2014). There are differences between those geographical communities
10nearby schools and those that are away from schools in terms of participation in school events (Saito2013). Immigration and the disintegration of matrilineal family structures have also affected thedispositions of rural people to schooling (Pryor 2005). Thus, it is necessary to identify inside
geographical communities in this study without assuming that they are homogeneous and consensual inthis study.
In addition to diversity within geographical communities, commonality between geographical andschool communities have been dissolved. Geographical communities have established schools within
their boundaries and then sent their children to those schools. However, some guardians have tended tosend their children beyond their geographical communities to public or private schools in urban areasthat can offer quality education. In such cases, they joined a new school community, whereas guardians
were still members in their original geographical communities. Thus, geographical and schoolcommunities may not overlap as they were and fragile households may be marginalized within such
geographical communities, resulting in expanded educational and regional disparities and themarginalization of society (Edwards 2019; Ogawa 2017). Due to the expansion of choices of school,
households may join several school communities because their children attend different schools in or
beyond geographical boundaries (Yamada 2014).
Local governments and local education administrations have been in charge of school construction
and renovations, as well as the allocation of teachers and the provision of teaching and learningmaterials. However, indigenous geographical communities, which are run under the traditional
chieftaincy system in several African countries, still play an important role in influencing community
members for school development (Hirose 2011).

2.4.3 Participation and associated theories
2.4.3.1 Participation
Participation is a buzzword in the field of development (Edwards & Klees 2015). It is a complex
term, which can be taken differently according to the setting and the rationale for using it. The conceptof participation is often intimately tied with the notion of community, which is also a contested term
(Rose 2003). Thus, I carefully reviewed who participated (the subject) in what (the object), to what
extent (the degree), how they did so (the modality), and why they did so (the rationale), based on aliterature review.
In literature regarding community participation in school management, it is mostly community
members and guardians who are the most common subjects of participation, as described in Section
2.4.1. However, they had not necessarily participate in school management, rather they have been
11

involved with and supported school since their establishment. In the cases of headteachers and teachers,
it may seem weird that they participate in school. However, they are actually responsible for the
day-to-day running of schools and are indispensable subjects of school management.
Pupils have rarely been discussed as the subject of participation in school management in literature.
One exception is the study of Mitchell (2017), which in the case of Ethiopia paid attentions to pupils’
participation in school management, such as student leaders and networks providing academic support
and behavioural control to their peers. The practice of public critique being used for exposing
misconduct was also studied. In the literature regarding parents’ involvement in education, Epstein et al.
(2002) asserted that students are the main actors in their education, development, and success in school.
Epstein at al. (2002) also stressed that partnership activities among families, schools and communities,
can be designed to engage, guide, energize and motivate students to achieve their own successes. The
study assumes that if children feel cared for, and are encouraged to work hard in their role as a student,
they are more likely to do their best to learn to read, calculate and learn other skills and talents, and toremain in school. Sanders (2002) also articulated the significance of two-way communications between
schools and community partners, stating that one simple measure to determine the level ofappropriateness of the community partnership was to examine whether the partnership was positive forstudents.
In terms of the objects of participation, SBM programs transfer authority over budget (payment ofteachers, mobilizing resources), personnel (teacher hiring/firing), pedagogy (curriculum development,teacher training, textbook design, and textbook distribution), maintenance and infrastructure (building
and maintenance), and monitoring and evaluation at the school level (Barrera-Osorio et al. 2009; Rose
2003). The degree of participation ranges from pseudo-participation to genuine participation (use ofservice, contributions of resources, attendance at meetings, consultation on issues, involvement indelivery, delegated powers and decision-making) (Rose 2003). Epstein et al. (2002) also classified
parent involvement as follows; parenting, communicating, volunteering, learning at home,decision-making and collaborating with the community. These types of parent involvement includes
both collective and individual aspect of participation as described below.
The modality of participation is associated with the rationale of participation, the modality ofcommunity and the organization/unit (Annex 4). Collective participation implies that decision-making,resource mobilization and information sharing are being conducted in a collective space. The
participatory democracy is a key rationale for collective participation. However, its interpretation seems
to be different in Western and African societies. On one hand, in Western society, according to Bryk &Schneider (2002), Putnam (1995) emphasized the willingness of citizens to associate voluntarily with12

one another to redress collective concerns. On the other hand, Nyamnjoh (2016) considered individuals
to be incomplete, such that they formulate communities that involve interdependence. Yntiso et al.
(2017) argued that the Western institutional setting focuses on individuals, whereas the African culturesconsider the collectives to be the units of social organizations. This shows a clear contrast between
Western and African societies in terms of why people meet for certain objectives.
Within collective participation, the elective representatives of community members and parents
meet, discuss and make decisions based on the principle of representative democracy in an
institutionalized school communities. On the other, as Yamada (2014) pointed out, even before theinstitutionalized school communities were established, indigenous geographical communities had met
and discussed issues on education, based on the principle of the consensual democracy (Ajei 2001) in
African society.
Under a representative democracy, there are several rationales. First, there is the legitimacy ofparticipation. This seeks changes in school organizations from those where experts have dominateddecision-making, to those where community members including parents can know, require, andparticipate in school management as democratic institutions. Community members’ participation inschool management is considered to be a challenge, and political motives for democracy have also beenemphasized. The second rationale is the effectiveness of participation. It has been argued that if a
community participates in school management, it is possible to produce educational outcomes
effectively.
The motivations behind these rationales are as follows: first, the central government cannot meetthe demands of schooling financially; second, if authorities are delegated to the school level,
decision-making can effectively respond to schools’ needs (Welsh & McGinn 1999). This kind of idea iscalled as an instrumental approach toward participation (Edwards & Klees 2015) because participation
becomes a powerful instrument for community members and guardians to demand accountability forschools.
School governing bodies and parent voluntary organizations are tangible forms of institutionalized
participation. However, while school governing body’s executive meetings place more emphasis on
representative democracy in terms of the decision-making of school management as part of an
educational administration, parent voluntary organizations’ general meetings are based on theconsensual democracy rationale as this embraces collaboration and mutual support for pupils’ education.
On the other hand, individual participation deals with rearing one’s own child as an individual
households’ goal. This involves direct engagement with children as it relates to daily rearing of children
at home. An individual parent’s participation in children’s learning has been shown to be the most13effective form of parent involvement for improving learning outcomes (Martiniello 2000). However, indeveloping countries, guardians in rural areas tend to prefer collective participation (attending school
meetings) to individual participation (looking after child’s homework at home) due to their low
educational background (Carolan-Silva 2011).
Parent participation and individual participation appear to be similar, however, they need to be
distinguished. Parent participation includes both collective/indirect and individual/direct participation(Carolan-Silva 2011; Epstein et al. 2002; Suzuki 2002). When parents volunteer, make decisions andcollaborate with a community collectively, this seems to be part of indirect engagement with children
and collective participation as guardians work together as collectives of communities. When they doparenting, communicate with individual teachers and children, and make sure that children learn athome, this appears to be more similar to direct engagement with children and individual participation as
it is mostly done at home or individually between parents and teachers.
Community participation in school management has changed the positions of both community
members and parents in relation to schools. In the past, they tended to be viewed as inputs into school
management, or as supporters to school development as members of a geographical communities. They
have been engaged with their children in rearing and supporting them to learn at home as parents.
However, with the introduction of the institutionalized mechanism, community/parent representatives
have become decision-makers in school management. This has created various challenges in therelationships among school-level stakeholders. Such challenges include elite capture-the notion that a
few stakeholders dominate decision-making processes (Pellini 2005; Saito 2013; Shoraku 2008);
information asymmetry between teachers and parents over pedagogical issues (Suzuki 2002); lack ofknowledge, skills and will for communities to manage schools (Carolan-Silva 2011; Mfum-Mensah &Friedson-Ridenour 2014; Chapman et al. 2002); lack of time for poor parents to engage in school
management (Cuellar-Marchelli 2003); the invasion of teachers’ professional autonomy and the cost ofparticipation (Carney et al. 2007; Essuman & Akyeampong 2011).

2.4.3.2 Participation and Accountability
The introduction of participation discourse had been accompanied by the theory of accountability(Suzuki 2002). The World Development Report 2004 stressed that citizens including parents andcommunity members are clients who can exercise client power to service providers, namely, schools in
the education sector (World Bank 2003). In this regards, parents and community members have become
subjects who participate in school management as well as demand accountability regarding school
management (See Annex 3).
14

There are three key assumptions that we tend to overlook in the accountability frameworkpresented by the World Bank. First, it is assumed that if community members and parents participate inschool management, then schools are held accountable to them for school performance. It assumes thatstrengthening managerial approaches to make communities and parents supervise teachers would maketeachers feel obliged to come to schools on time and deliver their expected services (World Bank 2003).
However, a review of the literature shows that the SBM studies have not addressed the prevailingtheoretical challenges in school management, namely, the linkages between managerial and pedagogicalfactors towards educational outcomes. Edwards (2019) argued that an SBM program in El Salvador was
heavily weighted towards managerial aspects, and did not sufficiently address pedagogical aspects.
Other studies have criticized one way participation-accountability framework as an instrumental
approach to community participation for educational outcomes (Edwards & Klees 2015; Nishimura2018). This is especially critical in the context of developing countries, which may experience severe
resource scarcity. Okitsu & Edwards (2017) described that teachers’ own survival needs, such as theirlivelihoods and ways of commuting, trumped their sense of obligations or accountability to parents orthe community.
Second, it is assumed that both long-route and short-route accountability work in tandem in theconceptual framework, whereas the long route accountability appears to have less attentions in practice.
This is particularly true regarding support from the central government or local government/education
offices to educational service providers. However, as Gershberg et al. (2012) described, there arevarious government responsibilities in long route accountability. For instance, the sub-national level ofgovernment or management is supposed to conduct the following for the sake of educational service
providers: communicate, explain, monitor, evaluate and/or enforce norms and standards; distributeeducational resources, supervise and support schools and conduct human resource management. Thus,
as Essuman (2013) pointed out, schools did not believe that they were accountable to schoolcommunities, rather they were accountable to the education directorate, because of its authority to
appoint teachers. However, in realities, delays in the capitation grant from the government of Ghana
have made it impossible for schools to be held accountable for their performance (Adu 2016;
Malakolunthu et al. 2014).
The third assumption was that it regards geographical communities to be homogeneous and schoolcommunities to be consensual in terms of educational development. Thus, it is important to consider
weak school communities and schools, which tend to be overlooked in school-based management
interventions. De Grauwe (2005) argued that underperforming schools need support more than theyneed accountability. This means that poorly performing schools need internal capacity building or15

advice on how to improve, before holding themselves accountable externally. Government’s
responsibilities are to support and monitor fragile school communities and schools.
Based on this conceptual framework of accountability, the institutionalized mechanism ofcommunity participation in school management has been spread out worldwide and has been supported
by various development partners (Barrera-Osorio et al. 2009). For instance, the World Bank found that
17% of its education sector projects between 2003 and 2013 had components addressing school
autonomy and accountability (Takeda et al. 2013). The Project Appraisal Document for the World Bank
Project in Senegal, stated that the impact evaluation results supported the positive effects ofschool-based management interventions (establishment of SMC, training of stakeholders, developmentof the School Performance Improvement Plan (SPIP), and etc.) on student test scores (World Bank2013). This document clearly stated what interventions work to yield learning outcomes and that ‘thepercentage of schools with functional SMC’ became one of disbursement-linked indicators without
specifying what functional SMC means.

2.4.3.3 Participation and Leadership
Yamada (2014) argued that one of the major factors that divide active and inactive schools is
leadership. According to Yamada (2014), leadership in community participation in school management
can take several forms. The first is leaders who hold a certain level of administrative authority in
traditional organizations. This type of leadership has been available even before the institutionalizedmechanism of community participation was installed. Headteacher leadership also plays an importantrole (Adu 2016; Leithwood et al. 2004; Malakolunthu et al. 2014; Yamada 2014). Secondly,
headteachers can build and nurture relationships with teachers, parents and community members(Malakolunthu et al. 2014). The quality of leadership by principals has a significant impact on the
success or failure of institutionalized school management because they liaise with actors outside of theschool (Yamada 2014). Adu (2016) also stated that school effectiveness and school improvement studies
have consistently highlighted the pivotal role of headteacher leadership. The third is those who holdaccess to outside resources. This includes actors such as the SMC or Parent-Teacher-Association (PTA)
chairperson, who need to write school improvement plans for the disbursement of the government
support or proposals to get external assistance (Yamada 2014).
Though leadership is critical to induce participation, it sometimes hinders participation. The
process of ‘elite capture’, happens when a few educated stakeholders such as headteachers and SMC or
PTA chairpersons dominate decision making process while the majority of parents and community
members are marginalized from the process (Essuman & Akyeampong 2011; Pellini 2005; Shoraku
16

2008).

2.4.4 Reciprocal and mutual relationships among school-level stakeholders
As shown in the accountability framework in the World Development Report 2004, theinstrumental approach of community participation has emphasized that community members andparents as clients, hold schools as service providers, accountable for school performance. However,Nishimura (2018) argues that this dichotomous notion of them being either clients or service provider
does not make sense. It is also critical to determine how to overcome challenges of conflicts,
differentiation, and alienation among school-level stakeholders as the results of institutionalized
community participation in school management. Studies have highlighted the significance of thereciprocal relationship between schools and communities (Essuman & Akyeampong 2011; Pryor 2005),
mutual accountability (Nishimura 2018) and balance between support and accountability (De Grauwe2005). For instance, Essuman & Akyeampong (2011) argued that schools and communities should havethe social contracts based on principle of reciprocity, and the mutual expectation of execution andaccountability of their respective roles. Nishimura (2018) asserted that there is a strong sense ofcommunity when people play the roles of both service providers and clients. De Grauwe (2005)
articulated that poorly performing schools need support more than they need accountability. In thisregard, accountability does not seem to be a one-way process from clients to service providers, butrather it is more collective and mutual, as Nishimura (2018) argued. The findings from these studies areuseful for overcoming the challenges of conflicts, differentiation and alienation among actors.

2.4.5 Social capitalSocial capital theory may be useful for analysing the relationships and overcome the challenges
among school-level stakeholders. Social capital is composed of trust, networks, and reciprocal norms,
and includes reciprocal relationships that are composed of expectations and obligations between two
parties (Coleman 1988). Studies have analysed social capital from both collective and individual levels.
Putnam (1995) defined social capital as something collective, in which community members trust others,
participate in organizations, do volunteers, go for voting and socialize with friends. Coleman (1988)
analysed social capital at the individual level, both in the family (e.x. whether a person has both parents,
their number of siblings, and their expectations from their mothers) and outside the family (e.x. whether
the family has not moved, or whether they enrol children in religiously based private high schools).
Social capital is also regarded as the family factor (e.x. family bonds, life habits, media control, learning
habits, and divorce rate), as well as the community factor (e.x. one’s efficacy to live in a community,17

and rate of house ownership) (Shimizu & Suzuki 2012; Tsuyuguchi 2016).
However, several studies have criticized social capital because it places emphasis on the traditional
values of family structure and the equal membership. Tsuyuguchi (2016) mentioned that researchers
who accept traditional and conservative recommendations support the concept of social capital, whereas
their opponents do not accept it. Others have criticized the limitations of social capital in thecontemporary era. Using Norway as a case study, Selle & Kristin (1999) criticized the fact that Putnam’
notion of social capital is based on participatory democracy, in which every member should haveface-to-face contacts and opportunities of socialization. They pointed out that democracy should accept
both styles of active and passive membership, and that one’s commitment should not be restricted toface-to-face contacts only but rather should include various modalities. Suetomi (2005) also argued in
the case of Japan that Putnam’ notion of social capital has the assumption of equal membership thatparents and community members have affirmative and active preferences to participate in the
management of public schools - and that they should pay necessary costs including committing theirtime. Suetomi (2005) expressed her concerns that parents and community members who are neither
affirmative nor active might be marginalized, and that this may produce a number of ‘free riders’ who
do not feel obliged to play their roles in schooling. This seems to be an issue of systematic fatigue forschool communities, which even various developed countries have faced following Putnam’s notion ofsocial capital.
In developing countries, social capital has been associated with community empowerment andcommunity development. Pryor (2005) argued in the case of Ghana that community participation
discourse assumed that social capital is inherited within the communities surrounding a school.
However, the reality is that a community is merely a geographical entity, and does not engender a senseof collectiveness. Edwards (2019) described in the case of El Salvador that community-based
management can be thought of as one element of broader efforts to work towards community
organization and community building. Essuman (2013) argued in the case of Ghana that there is areciprocal relationship between schools and geographical communities. In a study of agriculturaldevelopment in Tanzania, Araki (2016) mentioned that intrinsic capacity is accumulated andinternalized within individuals and communities through various community development activities.
They stated that this then becomes an engine and a source of intrinsic motivation for another activities,
which resulted in accumulated and synergetic effects.
Social capital has been classified into the following modalities: bonding, bridging and linkingsocial capital (Woolcock 2001). First, bonding social capital is based on particularized trust and its
network is closed and vertical. It exists in church groups, families and friends, neighbouring
18

associations that share solid connections based on homogeneous interests and backgrounds. Second,bridging social capital is a loose connection among people who have different interests and backgrounds.
It is based on general trust and its network is more open and horizontal. It exists in non-profit
organizations and civil society organizations. Lastly, linking social capital is a connection among
different individuals and groups with different social backgrounds. It exists in fund mobilization
activities, which are conducted by organizations that support socially vulnerable people.
As social capital analyses the relationships of wider stakeholders including community members,parents, teachers, and pupils at the community, household, school, and classroom levels, I realized that itis necessary to focus attentions on the factors related to schooling, in order to analyse the relationships
among school-level stakeholders. In this regard, I here pay attention to ‘bonding social capital’, whichanalyses particularized trust.
Many studies have analysed trust in the field of schooling, mostly from the perspective ofeducational psychology (Goddard, Tschnnen-Moran & Hoy 2001; Hoy & Tschnnen-Moran 1999). Trustis a way of reducing uncertainty (Holmes & Rempel 1989) and having confidence that our expectationsof others will be met (Hoy & Tschnnen-Moran 1999). Trust has also been defined as an individual’s orgroup’s willingness to be vulnerable to another party, based on the confidence that the latter party is
benevolent, reliable, competent, honest and open. Particularized trust is the trust that one possesses
regarding particular institutions like schools, and is different from the general trust that one can believes
in regarding society in general. Based on these studies, Bryk & Schneider (2002) developed the concept
of RT, which is considered to be the bonding social capital.

2.4.6 Research gaps in the literature
A review of available literature revealed that there are several research gaps to be addressed. First,
despite accumulated evidence, little has been uncovered as to how community participation affects
managerial and pedagogical factors in school management to yield educational outcomes. Critics of theschool effectiveness and school improvement studies have argued that it is still unknown which school
factors are associated with educational outcomes (Reynolds & Reid 1985). Most attentions had been
given to organizational aspects of school management, such as headteacher leadership and school
climate (Sammonds et al. 1995; Reynolds & Reid 1985). Bossert (1988) argued that there has been alack of attention paid to the effects that administrative leadership and school organization have on
instruction and student learning. In the conceptual frameworks of the school effectiveness studies(Schreens 1990, Heneveld & Craig 1996), managerial and pedagogical factors in school management
seemed to have affected each other in either one or two ways. However, it is not clear as to how
19managerial and pedagogical factors should be connected to produce educational outcomes.
Moreover, Bryk et al.(2010) presented an analytical framework that considers both managerial andpedagogical factors in school management. They identified the linkage between managerial andpedagogical factors and viewed them as the interacting subsystems operating in strong reciprocal
causation with one another. However, it is still unknown as to how such reciprocal dynamics occur
between factors in school management.
Furthermore, there appear to be research gaps regarding how the characteristics of effective
schools can be applied in the context of developing countries. To this end, it is critical to understand thechallenges of school management in developing countries. First, the stability and consistency of school
inputs are the most important in developing countries (Fertig 2000). Schools suffer from material
resource scarcity owing to limited government support (Lockheed & Levin 1993). The teachingprofession is regarded as being not financially rewarding owing to its low salary and fringe benefits
especially at the basic education level. This resulted in a high turnover of teachers to other sectors or tohigher educational levels (Fertig 2000; Hedge 2002). Second, headteachers in developing countries have
limited autonomy, have an autocratic leadership style, a low degree of initiative to change, and lack
instructional leadership (Oplatka 2004). Although some evidences in developing countries has shown
the critical role of headteachers in school improvement (Adu 2016), it is not possible to assume that theextent of headteacher leadership in developing countries is the same as in developed countries. Finally,
community members and parents do not have necessary level of the literacy and understanding ofschool needs（Chapman et al. 2002).
De Grauwe (2005) claimed that it is unclear as to the extent to which school-based management
has caused higher student achievement through accompanying pedagogical interventions. Edwards(2019) asserted that no studies have examined the actual teaching practices in the case of school-based
management intervention in El Salvador. Taniguchi & Hirakawa (2016) argued that school management,
namely, headteachers and teachers, were able to enhance student learning achievement, which facilitatedcommunity participation.
Second, there is also a research gap regarding how school-level stakeholders have mutual
relationships in relation to participation, leadership and accountability. Gershberg et al. (2012) argued
that sub-national government not only has the mandates to reinforce norms and standards, but also has
the responsibility to provide support for schools, as part of the long-route accountability. Several studies
have highlighted the lack of funds and capacity as challenges of local educational administration.
However, compared to popular short-route accountability as featured in the World Development Report
2004, little is known as to the extent to what local educational administrations as part of long-route20

accountability, can support schools in collaboration with local government, which is another vitalstakeholder at the local level and how they can minimize disparities among schools.
In addition, as described in Section 2.4.3, participation, accountability and leadership are key terms
in community participation in school management (Adu 2016; Essuman 2013). However, most studies
have emphasized the significance of these terms respectively, or have focused on the relationshipbetween participation and accountability (Suzuki 2002; World Bank 2003), or between participation andleadership (Essuman & Akyeampong 2011; Pellini 2005; Shoraku 2008). Taniguchi & Hirakawa (2016)
raised a question as to how to develop teachers’ responsibilities to improve students’ achievement and as
to how school leadership and community leadership influence community participation in school
management. Therefore, there exists a research gap regarding how leadership, participation andaccountability will work in tandem in role relationships and factors in school management.
As Nishimura (2018) mentioned, the mutual accountability occurs as a collaborative effort from awide range of stakeholders. However, studies have not yet analysed whether such mutual accountability
occurs in the relationships among various school-level stakeholders. Studies have not shown how
mutual accountability will affect factors in school management and improve educational outcomes,
which has been the key theme in school effectiveness studies.
Third, it is critical to know how pupils should be motivated, as they are the subject of learning.
Studies into community participation in school management have argued that students are themeasurable object of learning in the form of learning outcomes and school enrolment . However, thesestudies have rarely described how students feel and act as the subject of learning. Thus, there still exists
a research gap regarding how students will be motivated to learn as the subject of learning, throughinteractions between school communities, headteachers, teachers and their guardians.
Finally, a significant research gap exists regarding how the relationship between individual
households and collectives of school communities should appear. Studies have argued about thesignificance of social capital in both developed and developing countries. However, there is a criticalresearch gap as to how to identify the accumulation of social capital, and how it occurs in therelationships between the actors and factors of school management. The implications of this dissertation
might be useful for developed countries, which may experience a kind of systematic fatigue forcollectives of school communities.

2.5 Relational Trust (RT)
2.5.1 Characteristics of RT
Bryk & Schneider (2002) classified trust into three categories: organic trust, contractual trust, and21

relational trust (RT). First, organic trust concerns the unquestioning briefs of individuals in the moral
authority of a particular social institution. Bryk & Schneider (2002) referred to religious schools, which
are part of larger religious communities that embrace a moral vision. However, Bryk & Schneider (2002)
argued that the applicability of organic trust breaks down in most modern institutions. Second, theyargue that contractual trust is more common in the context of modern institutions. Here, both parties
agree with the terms of contract, which spells out the scope of work to be undertaken, or a product orservice to be delivered. However, they claim that the social relations around schooling do not fit wellwithin this framework due to the multiple aims of schooling, the complex process of producing student
outcomes, and the difficulty in monitoring practices in classrooms. Finally, they asserted that RT best
fits schooling. Its characteristics are mutual dependence among school-level stakeholders. RT isfounded both on beliefs and observed behaviours, which make it different from organic and contractual
trust. Bryk & Schneider (2002) developed this theory in their study of disadvantaged urban schools withscarce resources under the 1988 Chicago School Reform. They found out that RT affects learning
outcomes while also controlling other variables such as ethnic minorities etc.

2.5.2 Component of RT: role relationships
Trust in different role relationships have been studied in various literature. Hoy & Tschnnen-Moran(1999) analysed faculty trust in principal, colleagues, and clients (parents). Tsuyuguchi (2009) analysed
trust in school in relation to how parents trust schools using the theory of RT. Bryk & Schneider (2002)
considered that RT is the social exchange of schooling as organized around a distinct set of thefollowing role relationships: teachers with pupils; teachers with other teachers; teachers with parents;
and teachers with the school principal. They analysed RT from the viewpoint of teachers. There is aneed to analyse these multiple role relationships because this is a critical research gap regarding
mitigating conflicts among school-level stakeholders as stipulated in Section 2.4.3.1.

2.5.3 Component of RT: synchronies in mutual expectations and obligations
Moreover, Bryk & Schneider (2002) asserted that the maintenance (and growth) of RT in any given
sets of roles requires the synchronies of mutual expectations and obligations. For instance, as shown in
Figure 1, parents expect that teachers will take necessary actions to help their children learn to read (A).
Teachers feel obliged to work in a professionally appropriate manner and are willing to commit extra
effort , if necessary, in seeking to respond to the parents’ expectations (B). Parents in turn are obliged tomake sure that their children attend schools regularly and, more generally (D), to support the teachers’
efforts at home (p21). In this case, teachers may expect parents to perform their duties of rearing their
22

children at home (C). Epstein et al. (2002) put children at the centre of the social relationship among
school, family and community. In addition, Bryk & Schneider (2002) said that RT can makeschool-level stakeholders go the extra miles for children. However, it is not evident in the existing
literature as to how children are situated between parents and teachers regarding the exchange of
expectations and obligations within RT.

Figure 1. Decomposed picture of synchronies in mutual expectations and obligations between parent
and teacher
Source: Author based on Bryk & Schneider (2002)

Other studies have adopted the theory of RT in their analytical framework. Tsuyuguchi (2016)
articulated that expectations alone cannot be treated as trust. For instance, those guardians who expect
schools to care about what guardians should do, do not trust but rather depend on schools when the
expectation is highly stressed. Tsuyuguchi (2016) asserted that in schooling one must have both
expectations and obligations to others to realize RT. Thus, it is critical to analyse the mutual
relationships among the school-level stakeholders as discussed in Section 2.4.4, from the viewpoint ofRT, which has synchronies in mutual expectations and obligations.

2.5.4 Component of RT: criteria for discernment
Hoy & Tschnnen-Moran (1999) identified the following five faces of trust: willingness to risk,
benevolence, reliability, competence, honesty and openness. Bryk & Schneider (2002) analysed RT with
criteria for discernment such as respect, competency, personal regards to others, and integrity in their
qualitative study. Dabney (2008) adopted the concept of RT in a qualitative analysis in terms of therelationship between headteachers and teachers.
232.5.5 Component of RT: reciprocal dynamics between factors in school management
Bryk & Schneider (2002) briefly touched on the relationship between RT and the following coreorganizational conditions in school management: orientation to innovation, outreach to parents,
professional community, and commitment to school communities. Bryk et al. (2010) took this analysis
further, in doing so identifying that there are reciprocal dynamics between RT and the process of school
improvement, namely, ‘Parent, School, Community ties’, ‘School Learning Climate’ , ‘Professional
Capacity’ (managerial factor) and ‘Classroom Black Box’ (pedagogical factor) in school management.

2.5.6 RT and participation
Bryk & Schneider (2002) set the following role relationship for RT: teachers with pupils; teacherswith other teachers; teachers with parents; and teachers with the school principal. As described in
Section 2.4.4.1, parents/guardians will play their roles in schooling both at collective and individual
participation levels. Therefore, I decided to name this collective aspect of the relationship between
teachers and parents as ‘School communities-school RT’. This corresponds to collective participation,
whereas ‘Teacher-parent RT’ can be categorized as individual trust/participation. ‘Headteacher-teacher
RT’ and ‘Teacher-teacher RT’ are also discussed at the collective trust/participation level as they belong
to collectives of teaching professionals (Table 1).

Table 1. Correspondence between RT and participation
Particularized Trust

RT

Collective Trust

SchoolParticipation
communities-school Collective participation

RT
Headteacher-teacher RT
Teacher-teacher RT
Individual trust

Teacher-parent RT

Individual participation

Source: Author based on Bryk & Schneider (2002) and Tsuyuguchi (2016)

2.5.7 Research gaps in the literature
There are some research gaps in analyzing RT. First, Bryk & Schneider (2002) quantitatively
analysed RT in each role relationship, based on criteria for discernment. They created a composite
indicator of RT to conduct advanced quantitative analysis. On one hand, this has advantages because it
can avoid correlations among independent variables when investigating relationships between
24independent and dependent variables. However, the created composite indicators, are unlikely tomeasure to what extent RT in each role relationship affects the managerial and pedagogical factors inschool management, resulting in educational outcomes. Bryk & Schneider (2002) conducted thequalitative analysis. In their study, more emphasis seemed to be placed on the criteria for discernment,such as respect and personal regards, though they mentioned synchronies in expectations andobligations. Moreover, Bryk & Schneider (2002) did not reveal why expectations from one party weremet or unmet with obligations from the other party.
Tsuyuguchi (2016) articulated that it is necessary for parents not only expect schools to dosomething good for their children, but also to be obliged to perform their duties for their children. In thisregards, I assumed that he put more emphasis on synchronies in expectations and obligations thancriteria for discernment as Bryk & Schneider (2002) did. Methodologically, Tsuyuguchi (2003) asserted
that because trust is a concept that involves interaction between those who trust and those who aretrusted, it is difficult to gather data from both sides and to identify the extent of trust as the result ofinteraction. Therefore, Tsuyuguchi (2016) paid attentions to parents’ trust in schools. In this case, theexpectations from parents to school (A) and the obligations from parents to school (D) (Figure 1), aresomething ideal for schools that are trusted by parents. With this definition and arrangement,
Tsuyuguchi (2016) argued that it is possible to measure the extent of trust or interrelation between two
parties (parents and school) from the perspective of one party (parents).
However, despite these methodological advantages, Tsuyuguchi (2016) did not analyse RT in otherrole relationships such as between headteacher and teachers, among teachers, and between teachers andparents. In addition, although Tsuyuguchi (2016) suggested that more qualitative analysis is necessary to
determine which realities constitute these relationships, few studies in this field have combined bothquantitative and qualitative analysis.
In summary, in the context of developing countries, it seems to be important to pay attentions to thefollowing components of RT: role relationship; synchronies in mutual expectations and obligations; andreciprocal dynamics among factors in school management. This is because schools in developing
countries have to confront severe resource scarcity, and school-level stakeholders have to depend oneach other to support the day-to-day management of schools. Therefore, it would not be adequate tohave information as to whether one party has trustworthy characteristics such as criteria for discernment.
Instead, it needs to be known whether school-level stakeholders expect headteachers/teachers to performtheir duties to educate children, and headteachers/teachers are obliged to perform their duties in return,and vice-versa. Regarding the arguments presented in school effectiveness/improvement studies, it isworthwhile to know how such synchronies of mutual expectations and obligations will become25reciprocal dynamics among factors in school management. That is why I focus on these threecomponents of RT in this dissertation.

2.6 Summary of Chapter 2
In this Chapter, a literature review of school effectiveness and school improvement studies enabled
readers to understand the key factors in school management, whereas analysis of school-based
management studies highlighted the actors involved in school management. Research gaps have been
identified in terms of how actors and factors in school management can be connected to yield
educational outcomes. In this regards, the theory of RT has been introduced in this dissertation. Throughthe literature review, I illuminated how studies have interpreted and measured RT. This is critical toinform the research design of this dissertation.
In the next chapter, I will introduce the context of Ghana, where this dissertation deals with. It will
give readers contextual information how geographical communities have supported schools, howinstitutionalized school communities have been formulated, and under what circumstances headteachers
and teachers are situated especially at the primary and JHS level. These information is significant tounderstand how theories will work in practices.

26

Chapter 3. Community participation in school management in Ghana
3.1 Introduction
First, in this chapter, I introduce the education system in Ghana, to explain the education context in
Ghana. Second, I refer to the indigenous geographical communities’ support given to schools, and theinstitutionalized school communities’ participation in school management in Ghana, based on aliterature review. Finally, I describe the situations of the teachers and headteachers who are in charge ofday-to-day school management, which have rarely discussed in community participation literature todate.

3.2 Schooling system, its historical background, and educational outcomes in Ghana
In this section, I describe the schooling system (Section 3.2.1), and the historical background of
establishing public schools (Section 3.2.2). Following this description, I explain the status ofeducational outcomes from the perspectives of access (enrolment), quality (learning achievement), andpupils’ discipline in Ghana.

3.2.1 Schooling system
The schooling system in Ghana has the following cycle: preschool (two years), primary school(sixyears), Junior High School (JHS; three years), Senior High School (SHS; three years), and higher
education (Polytechnic, College of Education, and University) (four years). Compulsory education
covers primary school and JHS. The net and gross enrolment rates in 2016/2017 for primary, JHS andSHS are as follows.

3.2.2 Historical background of establishing public schools
In Ghana, generally speaking, geographical communities request the local education administration
to establish primary schools. After they have built the basic structures of schools, the local education
administration dispatches qualified teachers, and then register them as public schools. As it falls on thegeographical communities to establish the basic structure of the school, some schools do not havecomplete classrooms from Grade one to six, school canteens, urinals and toilets, staff rooms, orstoreroom. In the case that they have fewer classrooms or lower school enrolment than other schools
owing to inadequate school infrastructure, they have to teach pupils using a form of multi-gradeteaching. If primary schools have achieved a certain level of school enrolment, the geographicalcommunities can gain request to establish JHSs attached to these primary schools. In case of a JHS, theGhana Education Service (GES) headquarter has to appraise the request and register them as a JHS. The
27

District Assembly has an annual budget for constructing or renovating schools in the district, however, it
can only cover a few schools per year.

3.2.3 Access to basic education
Access to basic education in Ghana has made remarkable progress in recent decades. The net
enrolment rates at primary and lower secondary level schools are respectively 89.3 percent and 48.5
percent. According to Darvas & Balwanz (2014), in 2008/09, the average enrolments in KG, primary
and JHS schools were 90, 225 and 138, respectively. However, the medium of school enrolment perschool in Ghana is 80 at KG level, 193 at primary school level, and 112 at JHS level. This means that
school enrolment per school in Ghana is skewed toward the lower side than the average. Thus, Darvas& Balwanz (2014) argued that primary education in Ghana is largely delivered by small and medium
schools.
In Ghana, guardians are not necessarily supposed to enrol their children in schools that are locatedwithin the geographical boundaries they live. Thus, in practice guardians can choose schools, if they
have financial means and transportation. They may choose private schools if they can afford to pay fees.
There are several types of public schools in compulsory education, depending on which sections they
cover. They are KGs, primary schools, and JHSs.
In addition, some basic schools have KG and primary sections, whereas other basic schools have
JHSs in addition to KG and primary sections. Pupils who graduate from basic schools without a JHS
section have to find out an appropriate JHS if they want to proceed. School enrolment is an important
indicator for school management, owing to the following reasons. First, it represents their reputationfrom guardians’ perspective. If guardians perceive that a school performs well regarding the BECE orprovides a conducive learning environment, they will send their children to such a school. Second, as
school enrolment increases, the possibility of schools’ obtaining financial resources will also increase.
The capitation grant is calculated based on school enrolment, and a number of guardians will determine
how much PTA funds will be mobilized. Third, for basic schools without JHS section, school enrolment
in the primary section is an important indicator that shows the necessity of a JHS. As such, school
enrolment is significant for school management.

3.2.4 Quality of education from the perspective of the Basic Education Certificate
Examination
The BECE is a national standardized examination held in every June for JHS Grade three students,
who must sit the exam to complete their basic education cycle and proceed to SHS. 70 percent of a28

pupils’ total score comes from the BECE, while 30 percent is from a continuous assessment result,based on the information from the Western African Examination Council. There are six subjects: four
core subjects (mathematics, science, English and social studies) and two electives. Each subject has 100
scores and the aggregate will be assigned to applicants from one (best) to nine (worst) based on the
distribution of scores. To determine their admissions to a SHS, a student’s mean aggregate for these six
subjects is utilized, and the smaller aggregate is the better. The minimum admission qualification fora

SHS is to obtain an aggregate score below six for the core subjects. Studies in Ghana have argued that
guardians and community members pay special attention to the BECE as it determines whether pupils
can proceed to a SHS. The BECE mean aggregate at each school is an important indicator, because
pupils with smaller aggregates have greater opportunities to be enrolled into top performing SHSs.

3.2.5 Pupils’ discipline as an emerging concern
Unlike access to, quality of and management in education, Pupils’ discipline has rarely been
discussed in the education sector development plans of developing countries, including Ghana. However,
pupils’ discipline has become an emerging concern for Ghanaian society, which compelled me toinclude it as part of the educational outcomes in this dissertation. Pupils’ discipline is the highest
concerns for parents and teachers. I refer to the following factors that could affect pupils’ discipline,
youth employment, extended family, poor parenting and corporal punishment.

3.2.5.1 Youth employment
As shown in the net and gross enrolment at primary and JHS level, access to education has become
universal. The gaps between the net and the gross enrolment rate show that there are pupils who arebeyond school age but are currently enrolled as pupils. Some studies have argued that some community
members do not value the skills being taught at schools because they do not see those skills asnecessarily translating into money. Thus, the youth in poor communities are likely to be engaged withyouth employment that can earn ‘quick money’. ‘Okada’ drivers who transport passengers on
motorbikes without licenses, is one example (Sefa-Nyarko et al. 2018). This can lead to youths or
overaged pupils dropping out or working after school to earn money (Volta Online 2018). Under thiscontext, these pupils are not committed to learning, and do not put a value on education.

3.2.5.2 Extended family
In Ghana, it has been common practices for seasonal migrants leave their children in the daily careof relatives. The 2010 Population & Housing Census showed that there are single parent families owing
29

to death, divorce or working outside of geographical boundaries. Andrews (2017) highlighted that an
extended family links with poverty as it affects one’s capacity to be fully involved in a child’s education.
Essuman (2013) also asserted that many children are being fostered by relatives other than their
biological parents, however, grandparents and distant relatives may not have the same degree ofcommitment and knowledge of the child’s welfare in schools, and may therefore participate less inschool affairs.

3.5.2.3 Poor parenting
Sefa-Nyarko et al. (2018) articulated that ‘poor parenting’ is a hindering factor that influences low
secondary school completion rate. Poor parenting includes a lack of support and supervision. Suchsupport includes financial (feeding, textbooks, uniforms, Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) fees etc.)
and non-financial (i.e. encouraging students to stay in school or encouraging dropouts to return toschool or participating in school activities such as PTA meetings) components. Supervision includes
monitoring children’s attendance to avoid truancy, checking whether homework had been completed,ensuring that children are home on school nights and not out socializing at bars, and funerals(Sefa-Nyarko et al. 2018). Studies have also argued that parents believe that they do not have theresources and tools to educate their children, and overly rely on teachers to provide the required support(Ampadu, Butakor, & Cole 2017).

3.2.5.4 Corporal punishment
It has been common practice in Africa for teachers to use a cane to discipline pupils when they
misbehave (Alhassan 2013). There have been several attempts to prevent teachers from using cane,
however, it currently prevails as common practices in Ghana (Andrews 2017). However, in 2016, the
GES passed a directive to ban any corporal punishment, including the use of a cane. This provoked
controversial discussions among school-level stakeholders as to whether they should or should not use
canes to discipline children (CITI Newsroom 2019). Andrews (2017) argued that corporal punishment isa preventing factor for parent participation. However, Andrews (2017) admitted that there weredichotomies in opinions between parents and teachers in terms of use of corporal punishment in Ghana.

3.3 Indigenous geographical communities participation in school management
Ghana has a traditional chieftaincy system from the central to the village or town level. There arekings or paramount chiefs at the central level and there are traditional chiefs and the elders at the village
or town level (Hirose 2011). The traditional chieftaincy can discuss and address local issues, including
30

education. In these meetings, the participation and the consensus of the all the members is emphasized
during the decision making process (Ajei 2001). Currently, the local government or local education
administration is responsible for constructing and renovating schools, and dispatching teachers.
However, traditional chiefs still seem to be influential to teachers, guardians and pupils due to theirleadership and charisma (Hirose 2011).
Actors except for the government have been establishing schools since the British Gold Coast eraof the 1920s (Foster 1968; McWilliam 1975). Newspapers and the colonial government’s records at the
beginning of 20th century show that local elites and traditional chiefs had been actively engaged inconstructing and establishing schools (Yamada 2011). Traditional chiefs, missionaries, and local elites
supported schools at that time by providing labour and money, in collaboration with geographicalcommunities members, and hired teachers for schools. As these schools developed with community
initiatives, the management and control of the schools thus shifted to central government authorities,
and communities tended to become less actively involved (Adam 2005; Essuman 2013). Essuman (2013)
argued international literature on education decentralization often does not place as much empiricalinterests in indigenous geographical communities as it does in officially designated groups such as
SMCs or PTAs.

3.4 Cultural community
Among the types of community described in Section 2.4.2, cultural communities in Ghana arediverse in terms of religion, ethnic group, language, gender, and generations. According to the Ministryof Foreign Affairs in Japan, Ghana has several religions (about 70 percent Christian, and about 17
percent Muslim, along with other indigenous religions and more than 80 ethnic groups (Yamada 2011).
When geographical communities are divided into different cultural, ethnic, or linguistic groups, schoolcommunities need rigorous coordination over the use of language of instruction, school events andmembership of the school management body (Nishimura 2017). Pryor (2005) argued that a geographicalcommunity does not engender a sense of collectiveness because there are disruptions to thesecommunities from migration and the disintegration of matrilineal family structures, which affect thedispositions of rural people to schooling.

3.5 Institutionalized school communities’ participation in school management
3.5.1 Universal Primary Education policies
The Government of Ghana embarked on two major educational reforms in 1987 and 1996. In the1987 reform, the role of the local community to participate in basic education collectively and31

collaboratively was emphasized to improve access to education (Essuman 2013). In 1996, the free,compulsory, universal basic education (fCUBE) program was introduced, based on the 1992
Constitution, which required the government to provide quality basic education for all Ghanaian
children, irrespective of race, gender, religion, location or tribe (Adu 2016). The objectives included a)
improving access and participation in education (ensuring that all the school-going children are inschools and complete basic education); b) improving the quality of teaching and learning (promoting
efficient and effective quality teaching and learning) and c) improving efficiency in management(securing efficiency, probity and accountability in the management of schools).

3.5.2 Policies and practices in decentralization, deconcentration, and community participationin school management
In Ghana, decentralization reforms have accelerated to shift the responsibilities of the central
government to local government, the so-called District Assembly (DA) in Ghana. In 1988, the Local
Government Law created ten Regions and 110 Districts in Ghana, and the DA, which is led by theDistrict Chief Executive, became the unit of decentralization. In the education sector, currently, DAs
have school construction/repair budgets. The Education Act, which was sent to the parliament in 2017,
was aimed to strengthen the role of DAs in the provision of educational administration, which iscurrently at the premise of the GES district education office.
In 1995, under the GES Act, these deconcentration policies were used to create the GES
headquarter, which was responsible for educational administration at the national level, whereas
Regional Directors of Education and District Directors of Education were responsible at the provincial
and district levels respectively. The 1995 GES Act also established the School Management Committee(SMC). SMCs are under the supervision of the Municipal/District Education Oversight Committee, towhich the Municipal/District Chief Executive belongs. In this sense, SMCs are parts of the functions ofboth decentralization and deconcentration.
Policies and practices with community participation in school management have been continuously
introduced in Ghana continuously. To supplement the abolished school fees, the capitation grant (CG)scheme was introduced in 2005, with Ghanaian Cedis (GHC) three per pupil per year (Note: GHC 1 isequivalent to USD 0.18 as of October 20, 2019). From 2009, it has been increased to GHC 4.5.
Subsequently, the School Report Card (SRC) has been introduced to disclose schools’ and pupils’
achievements to parents/guardians, and the School Performance Appraisal Meeting (SPAM) has been
also launched as a venue to discuss measures that need to be taken, as an accountability system at theschool level.
32

The following interventions have been implemented with supported from development partners in
Ghana : the Whole School Development funded by UK Department for International Development(DfID), the Quality Improvement Primary School (QUIPS) project funded by United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID), the Ghana Partnership for Education Project (GPEG) funded by
Global Partnership for Education, the E-School Report Card project implemented by United Nations
Chidren’s Funds (UNICEF) and other projects implemented by various non-governmental organisations(NGOs) (Akyeampong 2004).
Among these interventions, the Whole School Development program was a holistic intervention
that was run under the fCUBE program. It featured the following components: child-centred primary
practices in literacy, numeracy and problem-solving; community participation in education delivery;
provision of support to headteachers and teachers; participatory planning and resource management at
school and district levels and improvement of efficiency in resource management (Akyeampong 2004).
Akyeampong (2004) highlighted some teething problems for the WSD. For instance, SMCs expected
greater transparency and accountability from headteachers, which may have been considered as being
intrusive by headteachers and teachers. Other problems included there being no, or limited resources
provided to schools, and headteachers also experienced difficulties in motivating teachers in the absenceof rewards and incentives.

3.5.3 School Management Committees and Parent Teacher Associations
Both SMCs and PTAs have similar objectives, but have different characteristics in terms of theirobjectives, membership, meetings and source of funding.
The SMC is mandated to engage in the following activities (Ghana Education Service, p.15, 2012):
Participate in establishing priorities and setting goals and developing strategies for school
improvement

Regularly encourage parents and other community members to participate in school’s improvement
planning and implementation processes



Review schools’ progress in implementing the School Performance Improvement Plan (SPIP) with
their headteachersSupport the development of team and leadership skills for both teachers and learners in schools



Implement mechanisms to hold headteachers and staff accountable for progress toward the goals
set out in the SPIPContribute to the development of the SPIP
SMCs executive members are composed of the following (Ghana Education Service, p.19, 2012):
33



District Director of Education or representative

District Assembly representative (assembly members)

Unit committee (administrative units under the district assembly) representatives



Chief’s representatives



PTA representatives

HeadteachersTwo members of the teaching staff

Co-opted members to perform specific functions (optional) .

There are three types of SMC meeting: general meetings (in which all of the members of the SMC
attend), executive meetings (in which elected executive members attend) and emergency meetings.
While it has been suggested that the SPIP should be developed in consultation with the whole schoolcommunities, it is not clear in the handbook as to whether all community members will be invited to thegeneral meetings. As the District Education Oversight Committee, which is chaired by the District Chief
Executive, is in charge of SMCs, SMCs seem to be school-level units of decentralized education system.
The sources of funding of SMCs are PTA funds raised through contributions by parents, donations from
NGOs, corporate bodies and individuals, grants or gifts and SMCs do not have their own means ofincome generation.
On the other hand, PTAs have the following objectives and memberships (Ghana Education
Service, p.29, 2012):


To promote the welfare of children and youths at home, at school and in the community, through astrong linkageTo assist in income generating activities to provide some basic needs for the schoolTo raise the standards of children at home

To secure adequate laws for the care and protection of children

To bring into closer relation the home and the school, so that parents and teachers may co-operateintelligently regarding the education of their children

To develop between educators and the general public such united efforts that will secure for all
children the highest advantages in physical, mental, social, and spiritual education.

PTAs are comprised of the parents and guardians who have a stake in their children’s educationand the teachers in that particular school. The source of funding for a PTA comprises voluntary financial
contributions from parents, in the form of PTA funds. In terms of meetings, there appear to be both PTA
34

executive and general meetings, but there is no specific explanation about these meetings in thehandbook (Ghana Education Service, 2012).
Adu (2016) stated that the PTAs are more active than SMCs because PTA can collect funds andservice their meetings with snacks, whereas SMCs do not play their roles as watch dogs, and have nofunds unless they receive a capitation grant. Essuman (2013) described the contrast between SMCs and
PTAs in terms of attitude and methods of involvement with schools. PTA members generally seem bemore supportive and collaborative, and pay more focus on pupils and less on teachers, whereas SMC
members behave as inspectors of schools. Thus, although they are expected to work in tandem toimprove schools (Ghana Education Service 2012), SMCs and PTAs in Ghana have different features.
Darvas & Balwanz (2014) argued that the survey results have shown that the degree of community
support for PTAs is strongly linked to their level of income, such that financial support for PTAs inschools located within wealthier areas is on average tenfold that of schools in the poorest areas (WorldBank 2003). Thus, it is worthwhile to investigate whether the extent of community participation interms of PTA funds depend on the sum of wealthy individuals, or on the collective powers of fragile
individuals.

3.5.4 Challenges in institutionalized community participation
Studies in Ghana have identified the following challenges in institutionalized community
participation in Ghana: community members’ inadequate socio-economic status regarding literacy skills,
value on education, income, will, knowledge and capacity for community members to manage schools(Mfum-Mensah & Friedson-Ridenour 2014; Donkor 2010) and conflicts between teachers and parents,
due to teachers’ fears that parents will invade teachers’ professional autonomy (Essuman &Akyeampong 2011).
In the literature, Adu (2016) and Essuman (2013) attempted to reveal the relationships between
community and schools, or among teachers, headteachers and parents/community members, throughqualitative research. Adu (2016) analysed two high-performing sample schools, identifying the teachers,
headteachers and parents and community members as actors, and the factors for school improvement. It
is significant that Adu (2016) analysed teacher commitment to curriculum change, headteacher
leadership and parent and community participation in detail.
However, there are several research gaps in his study. First, in the analytical framework of theconclusion, Adu (2016) did not adequately show the means by which the two-way relationships between
teacher commitment to curriculum change, headteachers leadership and parent and community
participation function. Second, through factors for school improvement were described in detail, the35

study did not show how these factors were related in a way that would lead to school improvement.
Finally, although the relationships between headteachers and teachers, and between headteachers andparents/community members were described, Adu (2016) did not mention how teachers and parents
work together to improve schools or pupils.
Essuman (2013) conducted case studies of two schools, and conceptualized community-school
relations by paying attention to capacity, leadership and accountability. This revealed that it is necessary
for school communities such as PTAs, SMCs and educational management to collaborate more withwider geographical communities. However, there are the following research gaps to be addressed. First,
Essuman (2013) analysed how accountability and leadership matter to community participation.
However, the study did not reveal how community-school relations will affect educational outcomes.
Second, Essuman (2013) highlighted the significance of reciprocity between communities and schools,
but did not clearly identify such reciprocity, or how to measure it. Lastly, the study did not uncover how
such reciprocity occurs in the factors that affect educational outcomes.
In terms of the operational perspective of school management, the GES has been collecting thefollowing information in the school questionnaires when it collects the Education Management
Information System data every year: the existence of elected SMCs and the frequency of the meetings;
the existence of a SPIP and the acceptance of the Capitation Grant (for the previous year). It is hard tounderstand whether institutionalized community participation in school management works as intended,
and more clarification is needed.

3.6 Teachers, headteachers, and local government/educational administration
3.6.1 Teachers
There are the following categories of teachers in Ghana: qualified teachers employed by GES; andunqualified teachers employed by the government or community (community assistant teachers,
national service scheme, and national youth employment program). As shown in the Table 2, the higher
the education level becomes, the higher the percentage of qualified available teachers becomes. There
are different educational qualifications among these qualified teachers. To be qualified to teach at basic
schools, one has to obtain a Diploma or Certificate A. To teach at a SHS, the Bachelor’s degree orhigher degree (Master’s) is required.

36

Table 2. Number of teachers and qualified teachers in public basic and secondary schools in 2017/2018
academic year
Numberof

Numberofqualified

Percentage

teachers(A)teachers(B)(B within A)

Kindergarten

42,66632,08475.2%

Primary

109,220

91, 477

83.8%

JHS

90,81883,09091.5%

SHS40,34137,048

91.8%

Source: EMIS

A shortage of teachers has been an acute problem in rural areas. When teachers are posted in rural
areas, many teachers try to get an immediate transfer. Female teachers, who make up over 30% of
training college graduates, are not in general posted to rural areas, because their parents are opposed toit (Hedge 2002). Study leave also leads to a shortage of teacher numbers. Every year there areapproximately 4,000 teachers on study leave, while 6,000 students graduate from training college(Hedge 2002).
The low status and motivation of teachers have affected teachers’ career paths. Akyeampong &Stephens (2002) analysed 400 student teachers to discern their expectations and aspirations regarding
becoming teachers. They stated that teachers in Ghana face the following challenges: working in
deprived areas and the danger of disease, problems with communication due to language differences
between teachers and community, problems of unsuitable accommodation in rural communities,
conflicts with community members and parents because of pupils’ poor academic performance andundue public interest and scrutiny of teachers’ life style. They argued that these have important
implication for teachers’ long-term commitments to teaching in Ghana.
In Ghana, the salary structure for GES staff depends on a teacher’s job title/description. If teachers
graduate from universities, they will start with ‘Principal Superintendent Professional’, which is ahigher rank than ‘Senior Superintendent II Professional’ (those who graduated from a College of
Education). Teachers become eligible for study leave after three years of teaching. Hedge (2002)
described that GES officials regarded teaching professions, especially at the basic education level, asa ‘stepping-stone.’ Akyeampong & Stephens (2002) also highlighted the low status of teachers,
especially at primary schools, and teachers perceived potential benefits that fitted with their ambitions
outside teaching or even within teaching (high status educators’ positions). Thus, for the sake of their37

own social mobility, teachers tend to pursue their individual careers rather than serving the community
where schools are located. Thus, unless a community shows that it values teachers (e.g. through theprovision of food stuffs and accommodations), teachers may not accept their role as a servant of acommunity (Hedge 2002).
The low social statuses of teachers also affects teacher accountability. Essuman (2013) argued that
community members were concerned with teacher absenteeism to a large extent, and were trying tooversee whether teachers were coming to schools on time. One of reasons why teachers may have been
being absent or late is that they were living in towns not in the geographical communities close to theirschools. The lack of public transportation sometimes prevent teachers from coming to schools on time,
as expected. In addition to delays in salary payment, teachers also have difficulties in paying fortransportation costs, which eventually affects teacher accountability.

3.6.2 Headteachers‘Principal Superintendent Head Basic’ is the minimum requirement to be qualified to become aheadteacher at a basic school. The following promotion process of headteachers is based on aninterview with the District Director of Education in the Akatsi South District, conducted during my fieldsurvey. First, a vacancy for a headteacher, is identified due to retirement or other reasons. Second, a callfor applications to the headteachers’ vacancy is notified through the district education offices. These
candidates will sit for an interview with a panel at the district education office, and if they are successful,they will be promoted to become a basic school headteacher. There is a responsibility allowance forheadteachers (the amount depends on some percentage of the salary base) in addition to the basic salarystructure. Headteachers can join a conference of heads of basic schools (COHBS), which handles thewelfare of headteachers and manages endowment funds when they retire.
The role of headteachers at the basic education level is stipulated in the Headteacher handbook as
follows (Ghana Education Service 2010):
Manage people (setting up school committees, delegating duties to school staff, maintaining
discipline in school, holding staff meetings, keeping records and filing documents and maintaining
good interpersonal relationships and a code of professional conduct)Manage instructional time (orientation to syllabuses, teaching and learning materials, writing
lesson plans, planning school timetable and managing instructional time)Manage co-curricular activities (sports, excursions, and others)Manage teaching and learning resources (school buildings; major maintenance; school compound;furniture; stationery; school library; equipment and tools; receiving, distributing and storing
38

supplies and stock taking)Manage school finance (school funds, capitation grant and school accounts)



Improve quality of learning (School Performance Improvement Plan, School Report Card andSchool Performance Appraisal Meetings)

Increase school intake and attendance (increasing enrolment, preventing drop-outs and absenteeism
and identifying children who drop out)Assess pupil performance including school-based assessment

Assess teacher performance

Staff development including in-service trainingImprove relationships between school and community (PTAs, religious organizations and SMCs)

At a glance, the roles of headteachers are multiple and wide, and this scope is increasing as it playsa pivotal role with community, parents and local education administrators.
Studies have mentioned that the status of headteachers at the basic education level in Ghana is not
attractive. None of the teachers interviewed by Hedge (2002) wanted to become heads of primaryschools. According to the GES officials whom I interviewed during the field study, the reasons why
headteachers position at the basic education level in Ghana is not so attractive is associated with thefollowing teachers’ motivations. First, some teachers ranked ‘Principal Superintendent’ or above would
like to work for urban schools as teachers at the primary or secondary level, or as assistant headteachers,
to avoid being posted as headteachers in rural areas. This is because they and their families prefer theconvenient lifestyle in urban areas, unlike that available in rural areas. Furthermore, a headteacher’s jobat the basic education level is tedious and not financially rewarding, and is without fringe benefits likemarking exercises at secondary schools or Colleges of Education.

3.6.3 Local government/educational administration
According to Darvas & Balwanz (2014), while the GES Act (1995) deconcentrated management
functions from the central to the district level, the Education Act (2008) devolved decision-making andfinancing authority to the Metropolitan, Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDA). This parallelsystem of deconcentrated and decentralized lines still seems to be ambiguous at the field level, and thisis reflected in he complex budget execution mechanism.
Darvas & Balwanz (2014) described that the GES is responsible for personnel emolument, supplies
and the disbursement of the capitation grant. The District Assembly is in charge of the Ghana Education
Trust Fund (GETFund) resources used for infrastructure investment. The District Assembly is also
39

responsible for the Ghana School Feeding Program, which is funded by the Ministry of Local
Government and Rural Development.
The GES district education offices comprise the following several units: administration, finance,
logistics and inspection. Circuit supervisors belong to the inspection unit, and they inspect a group of
schools divided by circuits and perform the following duties: feed information between schools anddistrict education offices, visit schools, monitor teacher and pupil attendance, check teachers’ lesson
notes and lessons and inspect school facilities. They usually attend SMC or PTA executive and general
meetings on behalf of the District Director of Education, as stipulated in the SMC Resource Handbook.
They vet the SPIP when it was submitted to the district education offices. They are also engaged with
distributing and collecting the Education Management Information System (EMIS) questionnaire fromschools every February. The EMIS questionnaire contains only the following four questions in terms ofcommunity participation in school management: whether SMCs are elected by elections, how frequently
SMC meetings are organized, whether the SPIP has been formulated and whether schools received thecapitation grant in the previous year.

3.7 Summary of Chapter 3This chapter reviewed indigenous geographical communities’ support to schools, institutionalized
school communities’ participation in school management, and the situations of teachers andheadteachers who are in charge of day-to-day school management. It is necessary to understand thecircumstances that headteachers and teachers in Ghana have faced, whereas most attentions are paid togeographical and school communities members in the literature. As this dissertation deals with therelationships between school communities and schools, teachers and parents, and headteachers andteachers from the viewpoint of RT, it is critical how to motivate headteachers and teachers to performtheir expected duties.
In the next chapter, I will explain the conceptual framework based on literature review and detailsof research design (research questions, research method, researcher identification, and ethicalconsideration).

40

Chapter 4. Conceptual framework and research method
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the conceptual framework of the dissertation, which address the researchgaps described in literature review and corresponds to research questions. I also explain how I adopt the
research method to answer research questions, data collection instrument, data and data analysis.

4.2 Conceptual framework
Based on the literature review, I developed a conceptual framework to consider the relationshipamong educational outcomes, actors and factors in school management and RT (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Conceptual framework
Note: In school management, circles and squares represent actors and factors respectively. RT denotes
relational trust which mediates between actors (SC: school communities, S: school, HT: headteacher,
T: teacher, P: parent, C: children) and factors
Source: AuthorFirst of all, I define educational outcomes as learning achievements measured by test scores, school
enrolment and pupil discipline. As stated in the literature review, parents and community members haveshifted from supporters or inputs to decision-makers in school management. Under this context, I definethat school management will include school communities and parents, who were considered to beoutside of school management in the past.
Subsequently, I decompose school management into managerial and pedagogical factors, as
discussed in Byrk et al. (2010). Managerial factors include ‘Professional Capacity’, ‘Parent, School,41

Community Ties’ and ‘School Learning Climate’. I did not include ‘Instructional Guidance’ in theconceptual framework because it is hard to determine how schools are aligned with curriculum within
the limited time available through several field visits.
I defined each factor as follows. ‘Professional Capacity’ is defined as the extent to which schools
have adequate quality and an adequate number of professional teachers, and whether teachers, including
headteachers, have a common understanding as to how to achieve educational outcomes.’Parent, School,
Community Ties’ includes both collective participation as a member of school communities, andindividual participation as individual parents. As collective participation seems to be an engine forschool management in developing countries as described in Section 2.4.3.1, it is worthwhile to examine
to what extent school-level stakeholders participate in collective participation. ‘School Learning
Climate’ is regarded as the extent to which schools and classrooms are ready for teaching and learningin terms of school infrastructure.
Then, ‘Pedagogical Factors’ is considered as the extent of ‘Time for Learning’, ‘Supplementary
Resources’ and ‘Dynamics of Student Learning’ (composed of ‘Motivation’ and ‘School Participation’).
As teachers and pupils are part of this instructional triangle, I made motivation include both ‘Teacher
Motivation’ and ‘Pupil Motivation’.
RT works between stakeholders with children being at the centre of its relationship as asserted in
Epstein et al. (2002), Sanders (2002) and Bryk & Schneider (2002). RT operates in both managerial andpedagogical factors. As shown in the question items (Table 8), teacher-parent RT operates in managerial
factors as information sharing, as consultation with teachers and through feeding breakfast. It operates
inpedagogical factors by making sure that children attend school without delay or absence, providing

needed items for schooling and looking after children’s homework. School communities-school RT and
headteacher-teacher RT are also related to both managerial and pedagogical factors. For instance,
mobilizing PTA funds is a managerial activity, whereas it also contributes to organizing extra classes for
preparing BECE. Headteachers and teachers discuss their relationship with school communities
regarding how to improve pedagogical activities for children. In Figure 2, collective and individual
participation appears to overlap to some extent. Actually, as shown in Figure 3, they do not overlap
horizontally, but rather vertically, because RT operates in a two-story arrangement of school
management in collective and individual participation, respectively.

42

Figure 3. RT between school communities and school at collective participation and between parent andteacher at individual participation
Source: Author

Figure 3 shows how RT between school communities and school, and teachers and parents, may or
may not be realized in the ‘Parent, school, community ties’ factor. Figure 3 also shows in detail how RT
occurs as synchronies of mutual expectations and obligations. I pay special attention to RT between
actors in each factor of school management, and analyse how RT mediates managerial and pedagogicalfactors to produce educational outcomes.

4.3 Research question
Based on the conceptual framework, I present the following research questions:
Research Question 1) To what extent does community participation function in school management?
Research Question 2) To what extent are community participation, socio-economic status (SES),
educational outcomes, and RT related?
Research Question 3) How is RT realized between actors and in factors of school management togenerate educational outcomes?

4.4 Choice of research method
Here, I describe the advantages and disadvantages of the quantitative and qualitative analysis andmention why I decided to choose the mixed method in this dissertation.

43

4.4.1 Quantitative method
Creswell (2014, pp.32) describes the quantitative research approach as follows.

‘Quantitative research is an approach for testing objective theories by examining therelationship among variables. These variables, in turn, can be measured, typically on
instruments, so that numbered data can be analysed using statistical procedures. Like
qualitative researchers, those who engage in this form of inquiry have assumptions about
testing theories deductively, building in protections against bias, controlling for alternative
explanations, and being able to generalize and replicate the findings.’

School effectiveness studies and school-based management studies have adopted various
quantitative analysis methods. For instance, the education production function in a form of theregression analysis that is often used in the school effectiveness studies to examine the relationships
between school inputs (as an independent variable) and learning outcomes (as a dependent variable)(Scheerens 1990). There are also experimental designs such as impact evaluation that use themicro-econometric methodology to examine the pure effect of school-based management interventions,to the extent possible (Barrera-Osirio et al. 2009). However, several studies have highlighted that thesemanagerial interventions with community participation in school management have little effect on thepedagogical practices of teachers (De Grauwe 2005; Edwards 2019).
Trust studies in education have also adopted empirical investigations to measure the faces of trustin school faculties, to explore the interrelationships between faculty trust in students, teachers,
principals and parents, and to test the relationship between faculty trust and parental collaboration (Hoy& Tschannen-Moran 1999). Bryk & Schneider (2003) articulated that one key to evaluating theimportance of RT for school improvement is the ability to reliably measure the extent of RT acrossschool communities.
Tsuyuguchi (2003) raised the issue of measuring trust. In his paper, the extent of trust in thefollowing relationships was measured from the viewpoint of teachers: between headteachers andteachers, among teachers, between teachers and guardians and between teachers and pupils. As a result,in terms of headteachers, trust was measured from the viewpoint of teachers who trust headteachers.
However, in terms of guardians and pupils, trust is measured from the viewpoint of teachers who aretrusted by guardians and pupils. Though the concept of trust involves inter-dependency among
stakeholders, it is almost unfeasible to collect data from all of the stakeholders.
To address the issue of inter-dependency of RT, Tsuyuguchi (2016) highlighted the characteristics
44

of guardians who trust schools. In this case, the characteristics of guardians are expressed as their
expectations of schools and their obligations for schools. This is something that is ideal for schools thatare trusted by parents. Therefore, Tsuyuguchi (2016) measured trust by focusing on the ideal
characteristics for schools, according to those who trust schools (parents). With this definition andarrangement, Tsuyuguchi (2016) argued that it is possible to measure the extent of trust or interrelation
between two parties from the perspective of one party (parents).
On one hand, this type of quantitative analysis is advantageous, as it allows researchers to morecredibly assess the cause-and-effect relationships and eliminate confounding results among variables(Creswell 2014). On the other hand, quantitative analysis is limited in that researchers’ categories used
may not reflect local constituencies’ understanding, and in that the knowledge produced may be too
abstract and general for direct application to local contexts (Jonson & Onwuegbuzui 2004).
4.4.2 Qualitative method
Creswell (2014, pp.32) describes the qualitative research approach as follows:‘Qualitative research is an approach for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals
or groups ascribe to a social or human problem. The process of research involves emerging
questions and procedures, data typically collected in the participant’s setting, data analysis
inductively building from particulars to general themes, and the researcher making
interpretations of the meaning of the data. Those who engage in this form of inquiry support a
way of looking at research that honours an inductive style, a focus on individual meaning, andthe importance of rendering the complexity of a situation.’

Various studies have adopted the qualitative analysis in the field of community participation inschool management, as have studies in the field of school improvement, because it involves different
views of different stakeholders. For instance, Essuman (2013) mentioned that people tend to havedifferent values on their individual experiences under the context where they are located, thus an
explanatory approach is necessary in the field of community participation in school management. Adu(2016) also stressed that qualitative approaches are particularly suited for exploratory studies, in which
the key concepts are not yet clearly defined and the causal links between them are unclear.
The advantage of qualitative analysis is that it can reveal what realities constitute the relationships
between variables (Tsuyuguchi 2016, Sato 2008). However, its disadvantages include that the findings
from the studied cases cannot be generalized or taken to represent the whole population. Edwards andLoucel (2016) adopted a longitudinal case study with references to documentary data over a period of45

time, and extracted findings from a historical viewpoint. In this case, even though there were a limited
number of cases, readers were able to trace chronological changes in community participation in school
management over time.

4.4.3 Mixed method
Creswell (2014, pp.32) describes the mixed method approach as follows:‘Mixed methods research is an approach to inquiry involving collecting both quantitative andqualitative data, integrating the two forms of data, and using distinct designs that may involve
philosophical assumptions and theoretical frameworks. The core assumption of this form ofinquiry is that the combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches provides a more
complete understanding of a research problem than either approach alone.’

Advocates have argued that the integration of qualitative and quantitative methods has synergistic
effects, and is useful in many areas of research, because the complexity of some phenomena require
data from a large number of perspectives. In the fields of school effectiveness and school improvement
studies, Reynolds & Reid (1985) pointed out that they required a dynamic model that could showinteractions over time, instead of statistical model, which would give a snapshot of theintake/process/outcome interaction at a point in time. Reynolds & Reid (1985) asserted that thequantitative method on its own would be unlikely to generate insight into these dynamic process, andthat only a more mixed methodological position would be adequate for dynamic analysis. Bryk et al.
(2010) also articulated that the standard ‘additive’ statistical model, which estimates the net effects ofeach element, controlling for all the others, did not seem to be especially helpful.
Several studies have adopted mixed method in the fields of RT and community participation inschool management (Bryk et al. 2010, Darbney 2008, Komatsu 2014, Nishimura 2018). For instance,
Komatsu (2014) studied how school directors in Bosnia and Herzegovina perceived school board
influences using the mixed method (a questionnaire survey and the interviews). Komatsu (2014)
explained that the quantitative data (such as a questionnaire) could be utilized to draw a general pictureof school directors’ perspectives on school board influences, and to analyse the statistical significance ofthe relations between school board characteristics, and the degree of their influences. On the other hand,
Komatsu (2014) also conducted interviews with school directors, to gain better understanding of thenature of school board influences, etc.
There are criticisms of the mixed method, however. On one hand, researchers who believe in46

qualitative analysis criticize quantitative analysis as being superficial and lacking in validity. On theother hand, proponents of quantitative analysis criticize qualitative analysis as being unrepresentative,
impressionistic, subjective and unreliable. Thus, studies have argued that to use more than one method
is to enter contested territory (Creswell 2014).
The mixed method involves combining or integrating quantitative and qualitative research and data
in a research study. There are three types of mixed methods: the convergent parallel mixed method, theexplanatory sequential mixed method, and the exploratory sequential mixed method (Creswell 2014). In
the convergent parallel mixed method, both quantitative and qualitative data are gathered at the sametime, and they are integrated for the interpretation of the overall results. For the explanatory sequential
mixed method, the researcher first conducts quantitative analysis and tries to explain the results in moredetail with the qualitative results. Finally, the exploratory sequential mixed method involves theresearcher first beginning with a qualitative study. Based on its data analysis, the quantitative analysis
will then start.

4.4.4 Research method in this dissertation and its rationale
This dissertation adopts the mixed method, particularly, the explanatory sequential mixed method.
By adopting the mixed method, I can reveal important methodological research gaps in the literature.
First, it is important to understand to what extent school-level stakeholders participate in school
management, and to understand how RT affects educational outcomes and factors in school
management, through quantitative analysis. With this, the readers can access objectively available dataand can analyse the relationships among variables.
However, quantitative analysis does not allow readers to understand why and under what realities
RT has an influence on these variables and their relationships. Thus, in this dissertation, I will adopt themixed method. Using the quantitative method, I will tease out to what extent RT affects other variables
and using the qualitative study, I will reveal why such relationships happen. In the qualitative study, I
will employ the triangulation method to determine the validity of the phenomenon using multiple
sources of data, as follows: interview results from different stakeholders, documentary data (minutes)
and photos taken during the field study. I will also compare the quantitative data with qualitative data toachieve a better understanding of the underlying context.

4.5 Data Collection
Here I present how the survey method, analytical method and data correspond to the researchquestions (Table 3). First, to answer Research Question 1) To what extent do institutionalized school47

communities function? I collected data from district education office, and administered a headteacher
questionnaire. I conducted quantitative analysis (trend analysis, and descriptive analysis).
Second, to answer Research Question 2) To what extent does RT affect educational outcomes andfactors in school management?, I collected data from the headteacher questionnaire and analysed themusing quantitative analysis (factor analysis,descriptive analysis, correlation analysis and regression
analysis).
Lastly, to answer Research Question 3) How does RT mediate managerial and pedagogical factors
in school management to generate educational outcomes?, I conducted qualitative analysis of how RT
mediates managerial and pedagogical factors in school management, toward educational outcomes.

4.5.1 Data
In terms of educational outcomes, the BECE is most prominent source, and represents the only
comparable data in terms of quality of education at the pupil level in the district. It is possible to employ
statistical analysis by using the BECE as a dependent variable. School enrolment is a not direct
educational outcome, but rather a school management outcome. It tends to be affected by geographicallocation, (urban or rural), and socio-economic status (whether households are rich or not). However, as
discussed in Section 3.2.3, school enrolment in rural areas represents the reputation of schools owing totheir educational activities. Thus, in this dissertation, I regards school enrolment as one of educational
outcomes to be analysed in the case study.
Lastly, pupils’ discipline is the most challenging educational outcome as it is difficult to quantify. It
is common to use test scores or school enrolment as dependent variables, as they are objectively
available data, but it is hard to investigate how children, as the subject of learning, are ready to learn.
Epstein et al. (2002) emphasized that if children feel cared for, and are encouraged to work hard in theirrole as a student, they are more likely to do their best to learn to read, write, calculate, and learn otherskills and talents and to remain in school. Thus, I pay attention to pupils’ discipline as one ofeducational outcomes in the case study.

48

Table 3. Research question, data collection instrument, data, and analytical methodDatacollection

Data

Analytical method

instrument
SES

Community

Relational

Educational

participation

trust

outcomes

District education✔

Trend analysis

officeHeadteacher✔

Factor analysis,✔

questionnaire

descriptive

analysis,(N=85)

correlation

analysis,

regression analysis

Brief

Descriptive analysis✔

headteachers’questionnaire(N=50)
Meetingofminutes✔

✔

✔

Qualitative analysis

✔

✔

✔

Qualitative analysis

SMC/PTA

general/executive
meetings
Individual

andfocused-groupinterviews

4.5.1.1 BECE
The results of the BECE, can be shown in the following ways. First, the pass rate shows how many
pupils get below an aggregate of 30 (below an aggregate of five for all six subjects) among theapplicants for each school. This is to show how many pupils are below the aggregate of 30, whichshows a satisfactory level of attainment, and not the border line to determine their admission for SHS.
The pass rate fluctuates year by year because it is affected by the number of applicants. Even if thenumber of students obtaining an aggregate mark below 30 is the same, if the number of applicants is49

smaller, the pass rate becomes higher. Thus, it does not necessarily mean that the performance isimproving if the pass rate goes up. Caution is therefore needed when comparing the pass rate over time.
Second, the BECE results can be shown as a mean aggregate. Although the pass rate is the same, it
is possible to have different mean aggregates because of scores’ distributions. Thus, to compare
academic performance among schools, it is relevant to use the mean aggregate as an outcome indicator.
It is also noted that the aggregate depends on the distribution of applicants’ scores, and it does not meanthat the same score becomes the same aggregate every year. Thus, it is not appropriate to compare themean aggregate over time. Lastly, the BECE pass rate ranking is commonly used at the district level,
when comparing the BECE results between schools. As the BECE pass rate fluctuates every year, theBECE pass rate ranking shows the relative positions of schools in the district.

4.5.1.2 Enrolment
School enrolment data are normally collected every February and March through the Education
Management Information System (EMIS) questionnaire. The district education office summarizes
school enrolment by kindergarten, primary and JHS sections for all of the schools in the district.
I collected data such as the BECE pass rate district ranking, school enrolment, and copies of the
EMIS questionnaires from the district education office.

4.5.1.3 Community participation
To assess the extent of community participation, I used the following data: frequency of PTA
general meetings per year, average number of participants at PTA general meetings, PTA general
meeting participation rate (the number of PTA general meeting participants over school enrolment), PTA
funds collection rate (the number of those who paid over that of those who are supposed to pay),
mobilized amount of PTA funds per year, mobilized amount of PTA funds per pupil and number ofmobilization channels.

4.5.1.4 Relational Trust (RT)I measure RT in both quantitative and qualitative ways. As discussed in the literature review,
quantitative analysis of RT has the advantage of measuring the extent of RT and the relationships withother variables, such as educational outcomes and other related variables concerning school
management. Using the headteacher questionnaire, I collected data concerning the following role
relationships: ‘School communities-school RT’, ‘Headteacher-teacher RT’ and ‘Teacher-teacher RT’. I
added ‘School communities-school RT’, which is not available in the study of Byrk & Schneider (2002).
50

I assume that school communities include SMC or PTA executive members, guardians and community
members who attend SMC or PTA general meetings, whereas schools are represented by headteachers
and teachers.
When developing the question items for ‘Teacher-parent RT’, I consider that parent participation
may include both collective and individual participation, as mentioned in Section 2.3.4.1. This isbecause parents participate in collective spaces such as school meetings, but are also in charge of the
day-to-day rearing of their child/children at home. Thus, I realized that the collective aspect of parent
participation could be captured in ‘School communities-school RT’, whereas the individual aspect ofparent participation could appear as ‘Teacher-parent RT’. I developed the question items of‘Teacher-parent RT’ accordingly.
Generally speaking, when developing the RT questionnaire, I referred to question items developed
by Byrk & Schneider (2002) and Tsuyuguchi & Kuramoto (2014). The questions were classified into
expectation and obligation items, except for ‘Teacher-teacher RT’. The questionnaire uses a four-point
Likert scale (4 strongly agree, 3 agree, 2 disagree, or 1 strongly disagree). I calculated the average scoreof the expectation and obligation items, and multiplied both average scores to calculate the extent of RT,
with reference to Tsuyuguchi & Kuramoto (2014). See Table 7 and 8 for more details.

4.5.2 Data collection instrument
4.5.2.1 Headteacher questionnaire
I developed a headteacher questionnaire to ask about 1) school and teacher profile, 2) the extent ofcommunity (collective) participation and 3) the extent of RT between school communities and school,
between teachers and parents, among teachers and between headteachers and teachers. The headteacher
questionnaires were distributed to all 86 public basic schools in the Akatsi South District, throughcircuit supervisors at the district education office and 85 questionnaires were collected. See theheadteacher questionnaire in the Annex 4.

4.5.2.2 Brief headteachers questionnaire
I developed a brief headteacher questionnaire and distributed it to all of the 86 public basic schools
during the field survey in September 2017, in order to obtain socio-economic data of schools. It
contained a question regarding which geographical communities were feeding pupils into each school,
based on the information from the 2010 Census. Out of the 86 questionnaire distributed, 50 werecollected. See the questionnaire in the Annex 5. In this questionnaire, I collected SES data for eachschool. To calculate SES for each school community, I used the the 2010 Census data at the51

enumeration areas in the Akatsi South District. I obtained this data from the Ghana Statistical Service(GSS) Headquarter for my research purposes. The enumeration areas were almost identical to the areasof geographical communities. I paid attention to the following data: education level, economic activity,
drinking water and mobile phone ownership.
Based on this information, I calculated the followings: proportion of SHS graduates overcommunity members who are over the age of 20, proportion of those who work for agriculture,
proportion of those who have access to sources of water that are not considered safe (Unprotected Well,
River/Stream, Unprotected Spring, Dugout/Pond/Lake/Dam/Canal, or Bore-hole/Pump/Tube well) andproportion of those who have mobile phones. I conducted an additional headteacher questionnaire (SeeAnnex 6) that asked which enumeration areas listed in the headteacher questionnaire feed pupils toschools (at most five). I calculated the average of these feeding community’ SES data and defined themas school communities’ SES.

4.5.2.3 Case study schools
During the field surveys, I visited seven public basic schools in the Akatsi South District. Theseseven schools were chosen as schools with high or low extents of community participation from theviewpoint of the district education officer who accompanied me during the field survey. I choose four
schools as case study schools among these seven surveyed schools to answer Research Question 3, andto answer the following emerging question as the result of the quantitative study: why do some schools
have better educational outcomes than others with the same background?.

4.5.2.4 Semi-structured, individual and focused group interview
I conducted semi-structured and individual interviews with headteachers and semi-structured andfocused group interviews with teachers, SMC or PTA executive members, and guardians. Details about
the interviews and the interviewees are as shown in Annex 7 and 8. I asked headteachers, through the
district education office, to call parents/guardians to ask them to participate in interviews. During theseinterviews, I asked how schools, school communities, and geographical communities worked in the pastand in the present, what issues prevented or promoted educational outcomes for the school and what
relationships among pupils, parents, teachers, and head teachers existed. The interviews took place atthe school compound, and lasted from 30 minutes to one hour for each category of group. I conducted
the interviews in English; a district education officer who accompanied me translated from Ewe, thelocal language, to English when the need arose.

524.5.2.5 Review of documents/photos obtained through field study
I took photographs of the available SMC or PTA general and/or executive meeting minutes (Annex10) from the surveyed schools. In case that I could not obtain these minutes, I asked the district
education officer to send me photograph data at a later date. All of the meeting minutes were available
in English, except for a few cases. I also collected from surveyed schools documents such as the School
Report Card, the SPIP, the EMIS school questionnaire, the Action plans for the term (which specified
activities held in the term), the school time table, the teacher attendance check list, the submission list ofscheme of work (lesson note), the lesson notes (which had been vetted by a headteacher) and othermaterials such as coaching observation tools. I also took photos that showed the school atmosphereincluding school infrastructure and equipment.
To avoid the possibility of respondent bias, I adopt the triangulation methodology. When I analysed
data, I tried not to refer to a single source of information, but instead used several sources to avoid
subjective impressions from the interviewees. For instance, if I referred to quotes made by parents, I
obtained quotes from headteachers, teachers and pupils on the same matter, to validate whether it was
unanimous.
I also made my efforts to check the results of interviews with the SMC or PTA meeting minutes orobservation (photo records) during my field visit.This enabled me to trace back the past discussion at
school communities, to know how issues have been discussed in a chronological manner, and to validate
the statement with the documents or physical evidences (ex. Existence of attendance check, purchase ofa laptop computer, and pedagogical activity with coloured groups).

4.5.3 Negotiating access
I have worked for the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and had stayed in Ghana forthe sake of operating an project jointly implemented by JICA and GES from 2002 to 2005.With suchbackground, I have contacts with JICA as well as with the GES headquarters. First of all, I contacted a
JICA expert on education decentralization who had been dispatched to GES, whom I knew beforehand.
Through the consultation, I decided to select the Akatsi South District in the Volta region, one of two
pilot districts of JICA-supported community participation interventions. This was because the District
Director of Education showed commitment to accepting my research in this field, thus I could expect
cooperation from the district education office, to the extent that was possible.
I wrote a letter to ask for a research permit to the GES headquarters prior to each field survey, andgot research permissions (Annex 9) to conduct field studies in the Akatsi South District. When starting
the field survey, I explained the objectives of the field study to the District Director of Education in the
53

Akatsi South District. I consulted on the selection of surveyed schools and the school visit schedulewith a district education officer who accompanied me. I obtained cooperation from circuit supervisors
when collecting the headteacher questionnaire. I reported the results of the field survey to the Directorof Education (Akatsi South District), the Regional Director of Education (Volta region), and officers at
the Basic Education Division at the GES headquarters. I wrote appreciation letters to the GES
headquarters when the field surveys were ended.
In terms of statistical data, I contacted the Ghana Statistical Service Headquarters and agreed to theterms of use of the Population and Housing Census 2010 data of the Akatsi South District. In terms ofbudget and school construction data, I contacted the District Assembly at the Akatsi South District andcollected necessary information.

4.5.4 Researcher identification
I was introduced to stakeholders of the visited schools as a researcher from Hiroshima University,
Japan. No reference was made to the fact that I had worked for JICA, thus it was unlikely that
headteachers who answered the questionnaire and the interviewees would have perceived me assomebody from JICA, one of the development partners in Ghana. As I am a foreigner, it is hard to avoid
bias whereby respondents may overemphasize the necessity of external support, considering theaffirmative nature of Ghanaians. However, as circuit supervisors have various mandates to check when
they visit schools, it is rare to have focused group interviews with school-level stakeholders on specifictopics such as community participation in school management. Thus, it is likely that the interviewees
expressed views to me that they could not do to other Ghanaians because I am a foreigner.

4.5.5 Ethical consideration
In terms of ethical consideration, I stipulated in the headteacher questionnaire that the information
gathered through the questionnaire was strictly being used for this research only, and that individual
information would not be revealed to the public. In addition, I used pseudonyms for the targeted schools,
and kept the interviewed participants anonymous. When interviewees mentioned somebody else’s
names in an interview, I also made these names into pseudonyms for privacy purpose. I also made theschools’ names and stakeholders’ names pseudonyms in the photos included in this dissertation.

4.6 Data analysis
I used the mixed method analysis in this dissertation. This was because both quantitative andqualitative methods have their own advantages, and complement each other for the sake of achieving
54the research objectives of this dissertation. The quantitative method was best for analysing the BECE
mean aggregate and the extent of its relationships with other variables. On the other hand, one needs tohave quantitative analysis to reveal why the quantitative analysis is the way that it is. In terms of othereducational outcomes such as school enrolment and pupils’ discipline, qualitative analysis is useful
because school enrolment is biased by school location. Furthermore, SES and pupils’ discipline are hard
to be investigated quantitatively. Finally, studies have mentioned that RT is founded both on beliefs andon observed behaviour. Thus, it is appropriate to adopt the mixed method, because one can examine
beliefs through the quantitative methods such as questionnaires, and can investigate observed
behaviours through qualitative methods, such as interviews and documentary reviews.

4.6.1 Quantitative analysis
I conducted descriptive analysis of community participation based on the headteacher’squestionnaire. To identify whether the indicators in each RT could be classified as expected, I conductedfactor analysis for each RT. Then, I ran correlation analysis among educational outcomes, SES,
community participation and RT. To avoid correlations among these variables, I conducted principal
component analysis, to simplify key variables such as socio-economic status, community participation
and RT, and calculated their composite indicators. Educational outcomes here are defined as the BECE
mean aggregate, because this is comparable among schools in terms of the quality of education.
Finally, I used regression analysis to identify the relationships among the composite indicators ofsocio-economic status, collective participation and RT, and the BECE mean aggregate. As Bryk et al(2010) articulated, the standard ‘additive’ statistical model, which estimates the net effects of eachelement and controls for all the others, did not seem to be especially helpful. I therefore consideredadopting a structural equation model, which would allow the estimation of interrelationships among
variables. Owing to the limitation of sample size in this dissertation, I decided not to adopt the structural
equation model.

4.6.2 Qualitative analysis
To analyse the interviews and documentary data from the viewpoint of RT, I utilized the
MAXQDA18, a software program that can analyse qualitative data. This software provides thefollowing four displays:’document system’, where all of the inputted meeting minutes and interview
transcripts were listed; ‘code system’ to describe the codes that I adopted following the conceptual
framework; ‘document browser', which shows the details of the documents activated in document
system, and finally, ‘retrieved segments’, which shows all of the segments in the activated documents55

that can be classified by activated codes. See the Annex 11 for more details.
I adopted deductive coding based on the conceptual framework and placed this coding in the ‘code
system’. These codes include one corresponding to pedagogical factors in school management- ‘Pupils’
motivation (pupils’ discipline)’ and ‘Teachers’ motivation.’ I also considered managerial factors inschool management: ‘Parent, School, Community Ties’ (school finance, parents’ support, and collective
participation) and ‘School learning climate’ (learning environment and school infrastructure).
Finally, I examined data of the abovementioned codes to analyse whether each of ‘Schoolcommunities-school RT’, ‘Headteacher-teacher RT’, ‘Teacher-parent RT’, and ‘Teacher-teacher RT’ arerealized as synchronies in mutual expectations and obligations. To judge whether RT is realized, I used
the following definition: when communications, consultations and decision-makings are made regarding
actions to solve issues, this is regarded as the expansion of ‘expectations’. If resources are mobilized torespond to such expectations, it suggests that ‘obligations’ are being made. Synchronies in expectations
and obligations are not necessarily observed as instant phenomena. This requires time-series analysis todetermine whether decisions made at the previous general meeting have been put into practice at thefollowing general meeting.
4.7 Summary of Chapter 4
In this chapter, I explained the conceptual framework based on a literature review, outlined theresearch questions that stem from the said conceptual framework, and explained the research method(data collection instrument, data and data analysis) that addressed these research questions. I reviewed
both quantitative and qualitative method referring to decided to adopt mixed method. I spent spaces to
explain how RT has been analyzed in both quantitative and qualitative analysis. This is importantbecause literature have put different emphasis in terms of components of RT. I adopted the quantitative
method that Tsyuyuguchi (2016) conducted, however, aim to reveal the extent of RT in each role
relationship. I also aim to reveal how RT is realized in each factor of school management towards
educational outcomes through the qualitative method, which literature rarely adopted.

In the next chapter, I will explain findings from both quantitative and qualitative perspective according
to research questions.

56

Chapter 5. Findings
5.1 Introduction
This chapter reveals the findings that answer the research questions, through both quantitative andqualitative research methods. First, I show my analysis of the trends of educational outcomes in the
Akatsi South District, to grasp an overall picture of the District. Second, I present findings from thequantitative research, and discuss their implications. Finally, I conduct qualitative analysis of three casestudies, which compare two schools with similar backgrounds but different levels of educational
outcomes. These case studies deal with the following educational outcomes: BECE, school enrolment
and pupils’ discipline.

5.2 Status quo of educational outcomes in the Akatsi South District
5.2.1 BECE
As mentioned in Section 3.4.3, the BECE pass rate fluctuates over time. Thus, the BECE district
ranking is useful for obtaining a general picture of the relative positions in all of the schools in theDistrict, in terms of BECE achievement. Generally speaking, newly-established private schools andpublic schools in urban areas tend to obtain higher BECE rankings, whereas public basic schools inrural areas have shown declining rankings over time. The far-right column of Table 4 shows to what
extent the BECE ranking has declined in comparison between the average between 2014 and 2017, andthe 2017. The negative figures in this column show that the ranking is declining.

57

Table 4. BECE pass rate rank league table in the Akatsi South District (2013-2017)

5.2.2 Enrolment
The total number of students enrolled in 2017/2018 was as follows: kindergarten 4,612; primary
11,915; JHS 4,167. In 2015, this was 4,442 for kindergarten, 11,917 for primary and 3,990 for JHS. Thismeans that there were some increases in enrolment in KG (170) and JHS (177) whereas there are little
increase in enrolment in the primary section. Except for schools with only KG or JHS sections, publicschools can be categorized by their size as follows: below 100 (15.19%); above 100 and below 250(45.57%) and above 250 (39.24%). As shown in Section 3.2.3, primary education in Ghana is largely
delivered by small and medium schools. The case of the Akatsi South District shows that their school
enrolment is far lower than the national average . There tends to be higher enrolment in KG than in the
primary section. If basic schools have only 100 students enrolled, with two KG and six primary classes(one class for one grade) and one teacher is assigned to each class, the teacher to pupil ratio would beapproximately 1 to about 12, which is far less than the district average of 27 in 2017/18 (stipulated in
the District profile of the Annual School Census). Among the 31 schools with enrolment above 250,58

twelve were located in urban areas, representing of the majority of 18 urban public schools in theDistrict. In sum, schools with larger enrolment tend be located in urban areas, whereas those withsmaller enrolment are more common in rural areas.
School enrolment is a critical indicator for school management. It is possible that schools withlower enrolment face challenges of inactive lessons owing to lower enrolment, and have limited
resources for school management, because the capitation grant is distributed according to school
enrolment. In case of schools without JHS sections, pupils have to go to nearby schools with JHS
sections.

5.3 Findings about community participation in school management
5.3.1 Institutionalized school communities’ participation
Based on the headteacher questionnaire, the status quo of institutionalized community participation(SMC meetings, development of SPIP, execution of CG, and organization of SPAM) was determined to
be as follows (Table 5 and Table 6).
First, most of schools organized meetings jointly as SMC and PTA executive meetings (86.2%),
and as SMC and PTA general meetings (90.6%). This shows that although SMC and PTA are different
organizations, as most of stakeholders for each body overlap, these two bodies seem to operate as one.
Therefore, I refer to them as SMC/PTA in this dissertation. While executive meetings are for
institutionalized participation by SMC/PTA executive members, who discuss and endorse the SPIP,
general meetings seem to be a space for consensual democracy, which parents and community members
have carried over based on the traditional chieftaincy. Thus, school communities in Ghana exist as
hybrids between institutionalized executive members and parents/indigenous geographical communities
members.
SMC/PTA general meetings were organized on average 3.36 times per year, the average number ofparticipants in SMC/PTA general meeting was 65.23 and the average amount of PTA funds mobilized
was GHC543.84 in 2016. Whereas the institutionalized school communities’ participation emphasizes
representative democracy, participation in general meetings and the collection of PTA funds asvoluntary contributions are still functioning. The SMC/PTA general meeting participation rate in 2016
was 35% (percentage of the average number of participants in PTA general meetings over the number ofchildren enrolled in school) and the PTA funds collection rate in 2016 was 63% (percentage of those
who paid PTA funds over those who are supposed to pay). This shows that, except for the capitation
grant, there exists a certain level of collective participation. However, not all guardians and community
members participate in meetings, or pay PTA funds.
59

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of educational outcomes, socio-economic status, collective participation
and RT

The extent of institutionalized participation in school management in the Akatsi South District, isshown as Table 6. In terms of the development of the SPIP, those who answered did so are as follows:‘every year without delay’ (49.4%), ‘every year but with delay’ (33.73%), ‘not every year’ (14.46%) and‘not at all’(2.41%). This means that the majority of schools (83.13%) developed the SPIP every year. In
addition, in terms of the question (multiple answers) about the scope of discussions before submissionof the SPIP to the district education office, ‘discuss with school staff’ (81.2%), ‘discuss with SMC
chairperson’ (74.1%), ‘discuss with SMC or PTA executive members’ (52.9%), and ‘discuss withparents and community members at SMC or PTA general meetings’ (18.8%). This shows that most
schools discuss SPIP with teachers, the SMC chairperson, and SMC or PTA executive members.
However, they do not discuss with parents and community members at PTA or SMC general meetings.
60

Table 6. Descriptive statistics of institutionalized participation in school management
Development of

Every

year

SPIP

without delay

Every

year

but

with

Not every year

Not at all

2.41%

delay
49.4%

33.73%

14.46%

Scopeof

Discuss with

Discuss with

Discuss with SMC or Discuss with parents andstakeholders

toschool staff

SMC

PTA

chairperson

members

discuss

SPIP

executive(multiple

SMC or PTA general
meetings

answers)
Timingcommunity members at

81.2%
of

Just

74.1%
when

Nearlyhalf

disbursement of SPIP

of way in theCGimplementati

activities start

52.9%

18.8%

When SPIP activities

After SPIP activities end

are going to end

or later

11.4%

54.4%

on of SPIP
activities
17.7%

16.5%

Source: Headteacher questionnaire

Regarding the disbursement timing of the capitation grant, the results were as follows. ‘just when
SPIP activities start’ (17.7%), ‘nearly half of way in the implementation of SPIP activities’ (16.5%),‘when SPIP activities are going to end’ (11.4%) and ‘after SPIP activities end or later’ (54.4%).
Moreover, the district average of SPAM was 1.35 meeting per year. In sum, most schools developed a
SPIP, however, its scope of discussion was limited to SMC or PTA executive members, and the
disbursement of capitation grant was seriously delayed. The notice from the district education office
dated in 17th September 2017 indicated that the 1st and 2nd batch of the capitation grant in 2016/2017
academic year, starting September 2016, were disbursed to a school account, delaying almost one year
(Figure 4).

61Figure 4. Notification letter from the district education office in terms of the capitation grant
disbursement to school account (left); Figure 5. SPIP signed by headteacher, SMC chairperson, andcircuit supervisor in charge (right)

This flawed institutionalized community participation would have prevented its rationale fromworking as expected. TSMC resource handbook (2012) recommends that schools need to encourage all
stakeholders to show interest and participate in the planning of the SPIP (p61). However, the results
showed that the involvement of the SPIP development was limited to mainly headteachers, school staff,
SMC chairperson, or executive members. The disbursement of the capitation grant, which is an engine
to move the planned SPIP activities forward, was often delayed. This made it difficult for schoolcommunities to hold schools accountable, because the necessary support or resources were not available
at schools to make activities/actions happen.

5.3.2 Indigenous geographical communities participation
The extent of indigenous geographical communities’ participation was mostly determined from thequalitative data. Before the establishment of SMCs and PTAs, indigenous geographical communities
had been involved in various support mechanism for school development. One community member
reflected how they were involved with the establishment of School A:

Community established a basic structure. It was a mud-made building in the past that community
provided labour work and the community provided labour and tax money to build current schoolbuilding as well. DA provided the toilet but other school infrastructure were all provided bycommunity and parents (A20170925PA).
62

One SMC executive member at School A stated the followings:

This school belongs to ** community and products (pupils) will be good materials tocommunity (A20180919PA).

These statements showed that the geographical communities surrounding School A was firmly
united and had a strong sense of ownership for school development. It seemed relevant to them that
school improvement would benefit the pupils who would then become responsible for the future of thecommunity. On the other hand, as suggested in previous studies, the indigenous geographicalcommunities at School D, was not consensual, and was subject to change due to the political balanceamong community stakeholders. The headteacher recalled how, in the past, the geographicalcommunities were united and supported school development.

In the past, the chiefs are together and there was the unity among them. (....) Previously two
school blocks (JHS and one of primary blocks) were built by community labour and there
was a fund for community development and school is part of it (D20170926HT).

However, the chieftaincy issue, provoked in 2013 changed the whole picture. The headteacher lamented
this situation as follows:

Among 14 chiefs, they are divided into two groups. Two chiefs are disputing over theparamount chief. (....) Parents see PTA chairperson and SMC chairperson come from thechief side and parents on the other side do not come (to SMC or PTA meeting) due to thatreason (D20180920HT).

These statements show that the institutionalized school communities’ participation, as shown in thenumber of participants at SMC or PTA general meetings, could be affected by the extent to which theindigenous geographical communities participated.

5.4 Findings about the extent to which RT affects educational outcomes and factors in school
management
5.4.1 Factor analysis and reliability test of RT
63I conducted factor analysis for each RT to identify which factors determined each question item.
First, in terms of ‘School communities-school RT’, I conducted factor analysis (principal axis factoring
method, promax rotation). I hypothesised that two factors, namely, expectations and obligations, would
be available in ‘School communities-school RT’. The scree plot showed the possibility of two factors.
As a result of factor analysis, I found two factors and named them ‘expectation’ factor (SC12, SC10,
SC11, SC9, SC14, SC5, SC7 and SC13) and ‘obligation’ factor (SC18, SC15, SC17, SC20 and SC19).
SC16 was excluded from the expectation factor because its factor loading was .376 and because thequestion item did not fit the expectation factor. I also conducted a reliability test and calculated the
Croncbach’s Alpha for the expectation factor (.786) and the obligation factor (.812).
Likewise, I conducted factor analysis (principal axis factoring method, promax rotation) for‘Teacher-parent RT’. Based on the scree plot, two factors seemed to have been identified. I named one
factor the ‘expectation’ factor (TPR4, TPR1, TPR3, TPR2, TPR6, TPR5 and TPR7) and the other factor
as ‘obligation’ factor (TPR9, TPR11, TPR13, TPR10, TPR12, TPR14 and TPR8). I also conducted thereliability test and the Cronbach’s Alpha for the expectation factor (.882) and the obligation factor(.729).
In terms of ‘Headteacher-teacher RT’, I conducted factor analysis (principal axis factoring method,
promax rotation) and based on the scree plot, the two factors seemed to be identified. I named one factor
as the ‘expectation’ factor (HTR3, HTR4, HTR1, HTR2 and HTR5) and the other factor as the‘obligation’ factor (HTR10, HTR6, HTR11 and HTR9).I also conducted the reliability test and the
Cronbach’s Alpha for the expectation factor (.802) and the obligation factor (.626). See Table 7 for the
results of factor analysis.

64

Table 7. Factor analysis of Relational Trust

5.4.2 Descriptive analysis
5.4.2.1 Relational Trust
After factor analysis, I calculated the score of the ‘School communities-school RT’,
‘Teacher-parent RT’ and ‘Headteacher-teacher RT’, by multiplying the average of the expectation factor
and the obligation factor. In the case of the ‘Teacher-teacher RT’, I calculated its score by averaging all
the question items. The descriptive statistics of RT is shown as Table 8. Several question items thatshowed the ceiling effects, meaning that the answers were skewed to the right (4: strongly agree). Thisseemed to be because in this dissertation, I measured RT from the perspective of headteachers. As
headteachers’ responses represented each school, there seemed to have little variance, and this might
have caused a ceiling effect.
Generally speaking, the average ‘Teacher-parent RT’ was relatively low, compared to the other RTs.
This is because the expectation factor had a lower score than for the others. For instance, the following
65questions had low scores: ‘Parents look after children’s homework at home or secure their learning time
at home’ (2.4), ‘Parents make sure that children come to school without any delay or absence’ (2.61) and‘Parents provide breakfast for children to let them be active for school activities’ (2.73). This impliedthat teachers had lower expectations for parents in terms of learning at home, enrolling in schools, andbasic child rearing at home.
The obligation factors scored higher than expectation factors in both ‘School communities-school
RT’ and ‘Teacher-parent RT’. This might have been because headteachers tended to defend the idea that
schools and teachers were performing their expected duties. In terms of ‘School communities-schoolRT’, the following question had the lowest score among all items: ‘school communities provides
necessary support for teachers’ (2.54). This implies that from the viewpoint of headteachers, schoolcommunities are not likely to provide support for teachers.

66

Table 8. Descriptive statistics of Relational Trust67

5.4.2.2 socio-economic status
The district average of the proportion of SHS graduate over community members who were over
the age 20 was 11.86%; that of those who worked for agriculture was 68.76%, that of those who hadaccess to sources of water that were not considered safe was 68.82% and that of those who had mobile
phone was 28.15%.

5.4.3 Correlation among educational outcomes, SES, collective participation and RT
The results of correlation analysis is as shown in Annex 12. Variables in SES , collective
participation, and RT were likely to be correlated each other. Therefore, to avoid such correlations
among the same variable categories, I made the analytical model simple. For that sake, I decided to
conduct principal component analysis and created composite variables for community participation(collective participation), socio-economic status, and RT.
In the correlation analysis, I found the following. First, the SES composite variable was correlatedwith the BECE mean aggregate (2017) (coefficient=-.413, p<.05). This means that pupils at
well-endowed school communities tended to have higher learning outcomes, as suggested in theliterature.

Figure 6. Scatter plot between socio-economic status (composite) and BECE mean aggregate in 2017

I hypothesised that the higher RT is, the lower the BECE mean aggregate will be available (i.e. thehigher the learning outcomes are available). Contrary to this hypothesis, it is only ‘Teacher-parent RT’
that was correlated with the BECE mean aggregate (coefficient is -.471, p<.01). Taking into account theresults of the correlation analysis, the following question emerged: why do schools with similar SES
have different levels of attainment in terms of the BECE and how will ‘Teacher-parent RT’ will affect68

BECE in the process?

Figure 7. Scatter plot between Teacher-parent RT and BECE mean aggregate in 2017

Second, the SES composite variable was correlated with school enrolment (primary school section,in 2017) (coefficient=.525, p<.01). This implied that when household’s SES tended to be higher, school
enrolment tended to increase. This might be because larger-sized schools are often located in urban
areas, where SES is generally higher.

Figure 8. Scatter plot between socio-economic status (composite) and enrolment (primary school
section) in 2016

In addition, the collective participation composite variable was correlated with school enrolment(primary school section) (coefficient=.503, p<.05). This means that school enrolment formed the basisof collective participation. If school enrolment would be larger, the number of participants in the69

meetings and the amount of mobilized PTA funds would also likely be larger.

Figure 9. Scatter plot between collective participation (composite) and enrolment (primary school
section) in 2016

I found that ‘School communities-school RT’ was correlated with the collective participation
composite variable (coefficient=.372, p<.05) Among the ‘School communities-school RT’,theexpectation

factorwascorrelated

with

the

collective

participation

compositevariable(coefficient=.490,p<.01). This means that the higher expectations schools have for their schoolcommunities, the larger the extent of collective participation that would be available.

Figure 10. Scatter plot between School communities-school RT and collective participation (composite)

I interpret the results of correlation analysis as follows. First, a certain level of school enrolment is70

vital for sustaining community participation and vice-versa. Without a number of school enrolment, thepopulation that can engage in community /parent participation is limited. Also, without some extent ofcollective participation, it is difficult to attract other parents/pupils to join the school. Second, I
hypothesized that ‘School communities-school RT’ would be correlated with learning outcomes andcollective participation, because their collective support for school development is vital to improving
pupils’ learning environment. The results showed that ‘School communities-school RT’ was correlatedwith the collective participation composite variable but not with learning outcomes. This may suggestthat ‘School communities-school RT’ or collective participation alone do not necessarily lead to
improved learning outcomes but rather the connection between the managerial factor (collective
participation) and the pedagogical factor is necessary. Third, it was a new finding that ‘Teacher-parent
RT’, which I assumed to deal with individual participation by parents/guardians at home, was correlatedwith learning outcomes. Thus, further in-depth studies are needed to determine the other factors
affecting their relationship (through the regression analysis), and to determine why and under what
realities they are correlated, through the qualitative analysis.
Considering that SES was correlated with school enrolment, the following question emerged: why
was it that the higher collective participation became in schools, the higher said school’s enrolment was?
Furthermore, why was it that the higher a ‘School communities-school RT’ was, the higher thecollective participation was. This is particularly significant in rural areas, where SES is low and school
enrolment is limited, compared to urban schools.

5.4.4 Regression analysis
I hypothesised the following: The higher the RT would be, the larger the educational outcomes
available would be (i.e. the smaller BECE mean aggregate will become), even when controlling fromsocio-economic status and community participation. First, I performed single regression analysis
between the BECE mean aggregate and RT. Then, I added the socio-economic status and collective
participation composite variables as shown in Table 9. The BECE mean aggregate and RT, as well as thesocio-economic status were all statistically significant (p<.05). This means that when higher RT wasavailable, better BECE results were available, even when controlling for SES. Finally, when I ran
multiple regression analysis between the BECE mean aggregate, socio-economic status, collective
participation and RT, none of the independent variables were statistically significant. As a result, I could
not prove the hypothesis that the higher RT becomes, the smaller BECE mean aggregate becomes, evenwhen controlling for socio-economic status and collective participation.

71

Table 9. Results of regression analysis

Source: Author

5.5 Summary and position of case study schools in the Akatsi South District
The following question emerged as the result of the quantitative study: why do some schools havebetter educational outcomes than others with the same background? Thus, I conducted three case studies
to answer why such situations occur, by presenting case studies that compared two schools with similar
backgrounds but different educational outcomes.
(Background)
School A
School A was established in 1946. It is located in 30 minutes by car from the town centre of Akatsi.
To reach this school, it is necessary to go along an unpaved road from a main road for 25 minutes andonly local residents would use such narrow roads for daily transportation. There was a school welcome
sign board with a pupils’ picture at the junction near the school. The geographical communities
established the school’s basic structure with mud walls and provided labour and levied money for theschool’s construction. It has KG and primary sections with the total enrollment of 220 in 2016.

School B
School B was established in 1989. It was located 30 minutes by car from the town centre, andalong the main road. There were only three classrooms, in addition to the headteacher’s room.
Multi-grade teaching is conducted at this school, owing to the limited number of pupils. There was a
dispute among the village concerning the school’s location. The one side said that the school should bebuilt in the middle of the village, but due to this being an area at risk of flooding, it was agreed to belocated at its current place. This caused a long-lasting dispute, however, and ten years ago the village
festival (durbar) stopped. It has KG and primary sections with the total enrolment of 89 in 2016.

72

School C
School C was established in 1952. It is located 4.5 km away from the main/paved road. Electricity
is available at this school. The main ethnic group in this schools’ geographical communities is the Ewe.
Most of the community members are farmers. Five to six geographical communities feed pupils to
School C. These geographical communities discussed the needs of establishing the school, and built thefoundation structure before the government came in. The Member of Parliament of the Akatsi South
District is from this community. They lobbied and established a three-unit classroom block using theDistrict Assembly Common Funds. It has KG, primary, and JHS sections with the total enrolment of
303 in 2016.

School D
School D was established in 1935; it is one of the oldest schools in the district. It is located in arural area, and it takes 20 minutes by car to reach it from the town centre. According to the headteacher,its community members are mostly indigenous, unlike in Akatsi town, where the people comprise a mixof different origins. This school serves 14 to 20 geographical communities, which contain several chiefs.
The first District Commissioner (currently the District Chief Executive) of the District was from thiscommunity, and their residence was used as a community building. It has KG, primary, and JHS
sections with the total enrolment of 365.

(BECE)
Regarding the BECE pass rate rank, the performances of Schools C and D were relatively goodcompared to other schools in rural areas in 2013 (School C, 13th School D, 19th). However, they showed
different trends after 2013. School D was ranked 6th among public basic schools in rural areas, showingthat School D was relatively better off in terms of the BECE pass rate rank. However, private schools
have emerged and have recently occupied the upper rank, thus the rank of public schools has declined asa whole after 2017. In addition, while School D was ranked 50th, School C still held a better ranking
than others in rural areas. This showed that these two schools developed a sharp contrast in terms of thedifferences in their BECE pass rare rank.

73

Table 10. Descriptive statistics of case study schools

Table 11. BECE pass rate rank league table in the Akatsi South District (2013-2017) and the rank of
Schools C and School D

74

(School enrolment)
School enrolment depends on the number of children in the community, the school’s location, andthe socio-economic status of households. In Ghana, as described in Chapter 3, school districts are notbased on residential areas, and choosing schools is eminently possible. Thus, some guardians who havethe financial means and transportation can send their children to private schools in urban areas, eventhough they live in rural areas. In addition, the amount of the capitation grant awarded to each school iscalculated according to school enrolment. Thus, school enrolment indicates that the school has a good
reputation from guardians, and also shows a scale of economy. There are no standardized examinations
or assessments for all the pupils at primary education in Ghana. Thus, I used school enrolment data
because they allowed me to access to data via the district education office, and to make objective
comparisons between schools.

Table 12. Trend of school enrolment of case study schools and their surrounding public basic schools
Year

2014

2015

2016

2017

Education level
School A

KG/Primary

213 (135)

230 (145)

220 (130)

160(107)

Surrounding school 1

KG/Primary143(86)203(135)

140(89)163(120)

Surrounding school 2

KG/Primary/JHS

341(189)

327(175)

327(181)358(241)

Surrounding school 3

KG/Primary/JHS

327(124)

310(145)320(154)303(170)

Surrounding school 4

KG/Primary/JHS

481(242)525(265)506(249)580(278)

School B

KG/Primary102(73)55(35)

89(45)

84(47)

Surrounding school 5

KG/Primary

96 (56)77(56)

69(50)

98(62)

Surrounding school 6

KG/Primary87(56)

77(48)

89(61)

81(60)

Surrounding school 7

KG/Primary/JHS

225(122)214(110)237(120)245(123)

Surrounding school 8

KG/Primary/JHS

232(121)

196(105)

187(106)

187(99)Note: Figures within parentheses mean the number of primary school enrolment. Surrounding school 4 represents thattwo primary schools feed pupils to one JHS, thus I present them as one school for clear comparison. I put surrounding
school 2,3,4 for School A as those where graduates from School A proceed based on interviews from headteacher andpupils.
Source: Author based on data from the Akatsi South District Education Office

Both Schools A and B faced the challenge of low enrolment. If we compare Schools A and B with75

their neighbouring schools, schools with JHS sections had higher enrolment in their primary sections
that schools without JHS sections (Table 12). If there were large size of schools with JHS sections
nearby, it seemed to be difficult for schools that only catered up to the primary section to increase theirenrolment. Therefore, it is important to sustain and increase enrolment even at a small scale. Theretended to be higher enrolment at KGs than in primary sections, and as grades go up at the primary level,
enrolment declines. When analysing the trend of enrolment over time (Table 12), on one hand, thoseschools with JHS sections showed increased enrolment in their primary sections. On the other hand,
schools that only featured up to primary sections tended to show either level or decreasing enrolment..

(Socio-economic status)
School A had lower proportion of school communities members who graduated from SHS andabove than the district average. Schools C and D, however, had better or almost identical scores to the
district average, in terms of their educational backgrounds. This implies that Schools C and D occupied
better positions than School A in terms of their school communities’ educational backgrounds, among
rural schools. Both case study schools were in a worse condition than the district average, according toseveral SES indicators. This implies that these case study schools are typical rural schools, where theliving conditions are not well endowed.

(Collective participation)
In general, School C experienced more collective participation than the district average. School Dscored lower than the district average in all of the indicators, implying that some problems were
occurring at School D. School A has a relatively good collective participation, taking into consideration
its size.

(Relational Trust)Table 10 shows the details of the relational trust (RT), collective participation and socio-economic
status of the case study schools. Among the case study schools, School D has a lower ‘Teacher-parent
RT’ than the district average. This implies that something was wrong with the teacher-parent
relationship. School A scored almost the same as the district average in each RT. School C has relatively
better RT values, except for ‘Headteacher-teacher RT’. School B seemed to have relatively good RT,
except for ‘Teacher-parent RT’, but this needs to be analysed further through a more in-depth study.

(Teaching force)76

Schools A and B have suffered from shortages of teacher. They did not have one teacher for one
grade. Schools C and D had adequate numbers of teachers to teach all of the education levels. Crucially,
they also had teachers with relevant qualifications and educational backgrounds.

Table 13. Details of teaching force
Education level

Teacher Qualification

Educational background

KG

Prim

JHS

QualifiedUnqualified

B

D

CA

SHS

School A

2(2)

4(0)

-

5

1

2

3

-

1

School B

1(0)

3(2)

-

3

1

1

2

-

1

School C

2(2)

6(3)

5(1)

13

0

-

10

1

-

School D

4(3)

6(1)

7(0)

13

4

2

10

2

3

Source: Annual School Census on Feb 2017 and headteacher questionnaire
Note1:Figures in the columns show the number of teachers.
Note2:Blanket in educational level means the number of female teachers at each education level.
Note3:In educational background, B, D, CA and SHS denote Bachelor, Diploma in education, Certificate A, and SHS
respectively.

The backgrounds of the headteachers at the four case study schools are shown in Table 14.

Table 14. Headteachers’ background
EducationalYears of working as a teacher

Years of working as a

Sex

Age

backgroundheadteacher

School A

Male

48

Bachelor

19 years (since 1998)

Since 2017

School B

Female45

Bachelor

20 years (since 1997)

Since 2012

School C

Male

53

Certificate A

31 years (since 1986)

Since 2013

School D

Male

43

Bachelor

18 years (since 1999)

Since 2014

Source: Based on interviews with headteachers and headteacher questionnaire
Note: Data as of September 2017

5.6 Findings from a case study of schools in relation to learning outcomes
I conducted a case study of two schools by examining whether RT was realized in factors of school77management, leading to achieving learning outcomes. This contributed to answering the following
questions posed by the quantitative study: 1) why do schools with similar SES have different levels of
attainment in terms of the BECE? and 2) how will ‘Teacher-parent RT’ affect BECE in the process?
Schools C and D had both been high-performing schools in rural areas, up until 2013. However,since 2013, School D has experienced a sharp decline in terms of its BECE district ranking, unlike
School C. BECE is one of the critical agendas that is often discussed in SMC or PTA general andexecutive meetings. It is critical for JHS grade 3 pupils to have better BECE results to allow them toproceed to a sophisticated SHS, which would then likely allow more pupils to enter universities. The
BECE also represents the only comparable data in the district to show the quality of schools. Thus,
school communities always have strong interests in the BECE results, and have associated it with efforts
by headteacher and teachers.

5.6.1 RT in ‘Professional Capacity’‘Professional Capacity’ is defined in this dissertation as the extent to which schools have adequate
quality, numbers of professional teachers and whether teachers (including headteachers) have a common
understanding regarding achieving educational outcomes.
Both Schools C and D had relatively well-equipped professional capacities in terms of the numberof staff in the teaching force with relevant educational qualifications (Table 13)) and regarding thepresence of experienced headteachers (Table 14). The headteacher at School D proudly stated thefollowing:

The teachers of this school are all trained teachers, the number of teachers is equal to
Achimota SHS (one of the prestigious schools) in Accra (D20170926HT).

One teacher at School D described their cordial relationship with their headteacher as follows:

When he sees something is not good, he approaches to teachers and tell his mind. He also
listens to teachers. The headteacher organizes a School-Based in-service training for teachersand he shares with educators professional ethics and teachers are gaining something fromhim (D20170926TC).
The headteacher at School D expected teachers to be professional and support their professional
development, and these teachers appreciated support from their headteacher.

78

The teachers at School C also referred to the cordial relationships among teachers as follows:

Cooperation and unity among teachers, when somebody is absent, we call how they are andtakes care of them. When it happens, they combine absent teacher’s class with other class andteach together. Teachers are hardworking...Teachers at this school are young and there are no
problems among teachers....What made us hard working is teachers’ love for job. Sometimes
teachers have to buy materials by themselves but we are trying out best (D20170926TC).

Thus, ‘Headteacher-teacher RT’ as well as ‘Teacher-teacher RT’ seemed to have been realized interms of ‘Professional Capacity’ at School D. Teachers at School C felt that their relationship wascordial. Thus, ‘Professional Capacity’ at School C seemed to have been in good order.

5.6.2 RT in ‘Parent, School, Community Ties’‘Parent, School, Community Ties’ is closely associated with collective participation and ‘Schoolcommunities-school RT’. Despite the fact that both Schools C and D had strong ‘Professional Capacity’,
there seemed to be differences in their ‘Parent, School, Community Ties’, as shown in the extent ofcollective participation of each school (Table 5). It is important to understand why there were suchdifferences in this ‘Parent, School, Community Ties’ factor between the two schools.

It should be noted that the extent of collective participation at School D was satisfactory in the past.
One teacher at School D recalled the situation before 2013 as follows:

In 2013/2014, community was very friendly and cooperating. When we call for PTA
meetings, they come. We do get more than 100 parents. Positive things happened was thatthey started to renovate school building (corridor)...When I came to the school in 2013, I
love it. There were extra classes, pupils’ discipline was good, and the BECE was good
(D20170926TC).

However, the chieftaincy issue was provoked in the 2013/2014 academic year. The headteacher
described the situation as follows:

The chieftaincy issue was about the legitimacy of the paramount chief here. The school andteachers try to be neutral on this matter. But if you work with PTA or SMC chairperson,
79

people see it from the different angle that the school sided with PTA or SMC chairperson(D20170926HT).

One teacher lamented the current situation as follows.

This time when we call for the meeting, only 30 parents come. Sometimes we use gong-gong(note: the traditional way of calling community people) to inform parents of the PTA meetingon the day when people do not go for farming or market. We set a day for the meeting but
they do not come. Chieftaincy issue caused the problem. Various villages are divided. The
case went into the court but cracks are still there. That was a beginning of our wars, theproblems (D20170926TC).

One parent bitterly mentioned the issue as follows.

Chieftaincy dispute became topical issue over the past three years...PTA chairperson support
the chief and parents do not come to meetings due to that...The issue is a headache for her. If
town is divided, they cannot progress (D20170926PA).

Even though SMC/PTA executive members and headteacher/teachers expected community
members and guardians to participate in general meetings, they did not feel obliged to attend themeetings because the school communities were divided, owing to the community dispute.

The headteacher mentioned some position actions against the community divides as follows.

The *** Youth Association, which is composed of age 15-30 age youth, tried to call the elders andthe chiefs that they should come together but it did not work yet. If opinion leaders in thecommunities make strategies and they must have a durbar in the community to talk each other. In
that way, gradually the dialogue would happen (D20180920HT).

One parent mentioned the following as a last resort to solve the community divides.

Youth need to come down and think of the progress otherwise the future of youth in thiscommunity will be destroyed (D20170926PA). The youth went to the chiefs and they try to become80forefront to stop the divides in the community (D20180920PA)

Though the community divides have not solved yet, efforts have been made to reconcile thisdivisive situation for the future of community development.

On the contrary, regarding School C, a stable relationship has been maintained with geographicalcommunities. The geographical community established this school, and when a teacher shortage
occurred, community members visited to education offices to ask for the deployment of teachers to theschool.

Parents described their aspirations towards this school as follows:

In the past, there are less education opportunities for girls as parents believe that girls end
up with in kitchen, now such recognition has changed. If you are farmers, you have to relyon the weather, but if you have education and have your jobs at government, you do not
rely on the weather (C20170922PA)

Another parent also expressed their strong emphasis on education.

If somebody (role model) go through this school, you will be doctor, MPs, teachers. This
expectation makes parents put value on education (C20170922PA).

It seemed that such a strong expectation for education was a motivating factor for parents andcommunity members to support school development.

To put this expectation into practice, parents performed their obligation to support teachers. Parents
referred to their support for teachers as follows:

4 teachers are resident in this community. Some stay at MP’s house. Teachers have to payelectricity but not for water...Community members provide foods for teachers when harvest
time (C20170922PA).

Teachers responded to such expectations by performing their obligations as teachers. One teacher
81mentioned as follows:

Teacher organized classes during vacation. Some teachers living in the community taught
students(C20170922TC).

In sum, ‘School communities-school RT’ was not being realized in ‘Parent, School, Community Ties’ atSchool D because expectations were not being met with obligations within the school communities.
However, at School C, the school communities expected schools to produce better educational outcomesfor pupils, and so was obliged to support them. Teachers also responded to such expectation by
performing their obligations. Thus, at School C, ‘School communities-school RT’ is realized in ‘Parent,
School, Community Ties’ based on the solid foundation of the geographical communities.

5.6.3 RT in ‘School Learning Climate’‘School Learning Climate’ refers to the extent to which schools and classrooms are safe and orderly,
in terms of school infrastructure and school atmosphere. The decline in collective participation observed
at School D, owing to the community divide, had several negative impacts on the ‘School Learning
Climate’. First, the geographical communities used to make contributions to a town development fundfor school, which amounted to GHC 600-800 as a monthly base. However, they no longer pay funds.
One SMC/PTA executive member said the following:

People regarded that a few people at the fund collection committee are spending the money
without accountability (D20170926PA).

This prevented School D from continuing to renovate its JHS school, which is now in danger ofcollapse.

82

Figure 11. JHS block in danger of collapse due to lack of funds (School D) (left); Figure 12. JHS
corridor buttressed with a temporal structure (School D) (right)

Second, those who were related to this school or the village expected school development andoffered the following support: textbooks, uniforms, drums, scholarship, and cements for the school
library. However, such expectations were not met with positive reactions from community members.
The headteacher mentioned as follow:

In 2014/2015, a renowned lawyer donated his English textbooks free of charge to the school
but as he is a lawyer of one group, three parents told their kids to bring them back to school
because they are from a different group of chief (D20170926HT).

Teachers also mentioned another case in which external support was not utilized as follows:

UK businessman from this village used to support the school but stopped around 2014 and alawyer donated his English textbooks to the school but some guardians refused(D20170926TC).

The headteacher also raised the issue of the school library as follows:

Member of Parliament donated 50 bags of cements for building school library. ...After
discussing the site for the library, the change of the site was suggested by other chief where
school canteen is supposed to be built. Thus the library project stopped for two years now(D20170926HT).
83

School D, which has had a long history since its establishment in 1935, had various channels of
external support for school development. However, this support was incapacitated and stopped being
utilized owing to the community divide. In this sense, expectations from the school communities,
including from those who provide external support to the school, were not accompanied withobligations by those who were supposed to utilize such support.

On the other hand, School C improved its ‘School Learning Climate’, which has been theirchallenges. Parents discussed in the PTA/SMC meeting as follows:

Water is their biggest problem. Children would have to obtain permission to go home todrink and after which they would not return to the school (C20161111PA).

In the meeting minutes, the SMC chairperson said that numerous attempts have been made to bringwater to the school (KG), but they had failed. They promised that they would make sure that water was
brought to the KG. It was also mentioned that this water issue was becoming stagnated, and that the
PTA/SMC and the community must take steps to address the water problems with urgency (PTA general
meeting minutes, C161111). In the following year, it was recorded that the SMC chairperson was very
happy to inform that water problem for the primary and JHS sections had been solved, leaving only the
KG to be dealt with (PTA general meeting minutes, C170724). It was confirmed by teachers that theheadteacher had discussed with the PTA chairperson, and was able to bring piped water into the school
compound (C170922TC). This implied that School C was able to address its long-standing challenge of
the water issue, which affected pupils’ school participation.
While ‘School communities-school RT’ is not realized in ‘School Learning Climate’ at School D, it
was realized in School C .

Figure 13. School building (School C) (left); Figure 14. Piped water facility (School C) (right)
5.6.4 RT in ‘Pedagogical factors’‘Pedagogical Factors’ is considered as the extent of 'Time for Learning', 'Supplementary Resources'84and 'Dynamics of Student Learning' composed of 'Motivation' and 'School Participation'. As teachersand pupils are part of the instructional triangle, I decomposed their motivation into 'Teacher Motivation'and 'Pupil Motivation'.
School participation requires a basic level of parenting, such as providing breakfast before coming
to schools. At School C, all of the possible supports for pupils to participate in school were emphasizedby various stakeholders. The headteacher advised parents not to give pupils other responsibilities during
school hours, as well as not to give pupils house chores, because this would take attention away fromtheir study.
The interviewed pupils confirmed that their guardians provided support for their schoolparticipation as follows:

Parents make me come to school on time and without absence….Parents do not force pupils
to do house chores and let me do homework. Parents ask whether I finish homework(C20170922PU).

While teachers mentioned that they expected guardians to provide breakfast for children, guardiansalso said that they felt that it was their responsibility to provide uniforms, breakfast, money for lunchand exercise books. According to pupils, their parents have provided breakfast, money for lunch, pencils,
erasers and exercise books. If they run out of materials needed for school, guardians will provide themfor pupils (C20170922PU). Such pupils’ comments explained that guardians responded to theheadteacher and teachers’ calls for supporting pupils’ school participation to some extent.
The headteacher at School D recalled pupils’ school participation in the 2014/2015 academic year
as follows:

The JHS Grade three pupils were stubborn; they destroyed academic performance, they did
not stay in the classroom, they did not do homework, and often after the first break, they goout from the school. Sometimes teachers had to chase them at their various houses to comeback to school(D20170926HT).

As such, pupils’ school participation with support from guardians seemed to generate differences
between the two schools.

Securing time for learning in the form of extra classes or classes during the vacations, is critical.
85

Parents referred to teachers in terms of their good performance at School C, and supported teachers:

We are proud of teachers. Pupils’ performance is improving. This is thanks toteachers...When parents asked teachers to do extra classes without pay, teachers do respond(C20170922PA).

Teachers also mentioned that they were able to improve learning outcomes, as part of their
responsibility to respond to the expectations of parents and community members:

Hard working. Teacher organize class during vacation. Some teacher living in the community teachstudents. When one teacher was at further study, he gave his contact number to students and if they
have any problems, they can call to the teachers. Not every students do but some did(C20170922TC).

Regarding the organization of extra classes for the BECE, there was intense debate within theschool communities at School C. The headteacher mentioned that they understood that some parents
were calling for extra classes, but that unfortunately the government have warned against theorganization of extra classes. The headteacher therefore did not want to risk organizing extra classes.
However, suggestions were made by guardians that the PTA should write to the office (GES) to obtain
permission to organize extra classes (SMC/PTA general meeting minutes, C161111). From theinterviews and meeting minutes, it was not clear whether any extra classes took place as a result.
However, this shows how guardians and community members were committed to organizing extra
classes, despite the cancellation policy by the district education office.
On the contrary, the decline in resource mobilization for school development affected 'Pedagogicalfactors' to a large extent at School D. One teacher referred to the reduced learning time as follows:

Extra classes had been conducted throughout Primary Grade one to JHS Grade three. However,they stopped in 2014/2015 academic year and parents are no longer paying (D20170926TC).

The headteacher also mentioned that even though parents expected that extra classes should beorganized, and had agreed to pay for them, they did not perform their obligations to pay for them.

In October 2017, at the PTA meeting, it was agreed that the school should have extra classes
86

for Form 2 and 3 (expected fee is GHC1.2 for 5 days), but only a handful people paid for it(only 20 among 100) (D20180920HT).

School D has suffered from delayed capitation grants and a lack of resource mobilization by schoolcommunities, which has affected supplementary resources for pedagogy in classrooms. One teacher
described the serious lack of teaching and learning materials as follows:

Last two years we do not have money for buying chalks. Using the internally generated fund(selling crafts) for buying the chalks. Capitation grant comes but delayed. 2016/2017 2nd
and 3rd tranche have arrived just now (D20170926TC).

Teachers at School C mentioned that they found necessary teaching and learning materials fromown pockets to improve their teaching. They said that the primary/JHS headteachers were having to run
their schools and sacrifice their own money to buy chalks when the capitation grant was not available.
According to them, these difficult circumstances for headteachers are one of the demotivating factors
for teachers to become headteachers at basic schools in Ghana (C20170922TC).

The division within the geographical and school communities surrounding School D also affectedteachers’ motivation, which is part of the pedagogical factor. The headteacher described teachers’
feelings as follows:

With this issue, most of teachers are opt-out for transfer as they think that all of theendeavours go in vain. Teachers say that community are reluctant (D20170926HT).

The headteacher also had strong patience, even though the chieftaincy issue had seriously affected
their school. He stressed the followings:

As a head, I tell teachers that they should look at their inner, and intrinsic motivation. With
that, most of us can stay on. You are posted to a school not to a community so it is for you tobring changes. Let us do our part (D20170926HT).

However, the teachers did not share the same patience as their headteacher. When extra classes
with pay did not materialise, owing to a lack of guardians’ contributions, the headteacher asked teachers87to cooperate with morning classes without pay. However, teachers insisted the followings:

Until (behavioural) changes happen to pupils, we do not organize morning classes(D20180920TC).

While the headteacher was aiming to improve the BECE results by way of organizing morningclasses, teachers could not agree such strategies without pupils’ commitment to learning andparent/guardians’ obligations to provide basic rearing for pupils. Despite expectations from theheadteacher about cooperation for morning classes, teachers were not able to feel obliged to respond tosuch expectations owing to the lack of pupils’ commitments to learning, and their lack of respect forteachers. In that sense, ‘Headteacher-teacher RT’ is not realized in teachers’ motivation and learning
time to prepare for the BECE.
Pupil’s motivation to learn is also critical for their learning. Pupils at School C showed their highmotivations influenced by their teachers and their perspective for the future. They said that teachers
were hard-working because students passed the BECE well, they did not joke around, they were serious
and they provided homework for every subject. Pupils also referred to their motivation to learn with theperspectives of their future. One pupils mentioned this as follows:

To proceed to SHS, pupils do homework, review what they have learned in the day by
going through their exercise books (C20170922PU).

With such pupils’ motivation, teachers seemed to be highly motivated at School C. Teachers
mentioned how they enhanced pupils’ learning and motivation as follows:

Teachers motivate and encourage pupils using teachers as an example (C20170922TC).
Guardians acknowledged teachers’ efforts by referring that they were proud of teachers, because
pupils’ performance were improving. This was thanks to the teachers. Guardians helped teachers who
resided in the geographical communities with water issues. It appears that guardians wanted to support
teachers in return for what teachers had done for pupils’ learning.

On the other hand, at School D, pupils did not show their motivation to learn, nor they respond totheir teachers’ expectations. Though teachers organized morning classes for JHS grade 3, the attendance
was not as expected. Teachers and guardians held the common views that pupils were not motivated to88learn. One teacher lamented over this situation as follows:

Pupils do not see the necessity to learn. Some of them have textbooks but they are notserious about education, they watch TV at home without study (D20170926TC).

The lack of pupils’ discipline has become a critical issue at School D. This has included a lack ofrespect for guardians and teachers, not doing the expected homework, watching TV at night without
doing homework and going out for wake-keeping (dancing with music at funerals) at weekends. One
guardian mentioned how the lack of pupils’ discipline affected teaching and learning (teachers):

The teachers are willing to teach but pupils are not willing to learn. The headteacher calledparents and complained about discipline of pupils. Guardians talked to pupils but they do
not obey (D20180920PA).

Teachers saw that the lack of pupils’ discipline came from guardians, because they were notencouraging their wards to study at home, and talk negatively about teachers. This low pupils’
motivation, caused by a lack of guardians’ support, made teachers lose their motivations to commit
themselves to teaching. One teacher bitterly mentioned this as follows:

If children is serious about picking up learning, it motivates teachers to do more…Without
discipline, nothing is helpful (D20170926TC).

In summary, School C was able to sustain its learning outcomes, with RT being realized in each of thefactors of school management. It had a solid foundation due to stable support from its geographical andschool communities, and was well equipped in a professional capacity. Water issues had been addressed,in consultation between the headteacher and the SMC chairperson, which would have contributed topupils’ school participation. Efforts to secure learning opportunities have been made because the schoolcommunities were opposed to the cancellation of extra classes for BECE, teachers were committed totheir work, and pupils were motivated to learn with support from their parents and teachers. This could
explain how RT is realized in the factors of school management, and how this has led to sustained
learning outcomes at School C.

89

Figure 15. Structure of how relationships between actors and factors in school management lead tosustained learning outcomes (School C)
Source: Author based on Bryk at al. (2010)

On the other hand, in the case of School D, there was declining collective participation, owing to thecommunity divide. This seriously affected RT in other factors. Support for this school in terms of the'School Leaning Climate', has been incapacitated due to the community divide. The lack of teachers’
motivation mirrored that of pupils’ motivations, and of guardians’ support for pupils. As teachers andpupils are two important subjects in the instructional triangle developed by Bryk et al. (2010), thisaffected the 'Pedagogical factors' to a large extent. Despite being well equipped regarding 'Professional
Capacity', the declining collective participation, owing to the community divide, hindered external
support and school learning climate, including both teachers’ and pupils’ motivation. This could explain
why School D’s BECE ranking has declined to the bottom of the district within a short period of time.

90

Figure 16. Structure of how relationships between actors and factors in school management lead to
declined learning outcomes (School D)
Source: Author based on Bryk at al. (2010)

Finally, by comparing Schools C and D, I would like to answer the following questions posed in
the qualitative study: 1) why do schools with similar SES have different levels of attainment in terms of
the BECE? and 2) how does ‘Teacher-parent RT’ affect the BECE?
First, with similar SES and 'Professional Capacity' factor, the 'Parent, School, Community ties'
factor seemed to be different, shown as in the extent of collective participation. Such differences incollective participation would have affected the two schools in terms of their 'Time for learning', in theform of extra classes, and 'Supplementary resources' needed for learning in 'Pedagogical factors'.
‘Teacher-parent RT’ would have affected the BECE because it is the results of pupils’ schoolparticipation, pupils’ motivation, guardians’ support, and teachers’ motivation. The difference between
Schools C and School D in ‘Teacher-parent RT’ would explain the differences of pupils’ schoolparticipation, pupils’ motivation, guardians’ support and teachers’ motivation in 'Pedagogical factors',
which lead to the BECE result.

5.7 Findings from a case study of schools in relation to school enrolment
I conducted a case study of two schools through examining whether RT was realized in factors ofschool management to sustain school enrolment. This contributed to revealing the following question,91

raised by the quantitative study: why is it that the higher collective participation schools have, the thehigher enrolment they have, especially in rural areas? A further question is how does higher ‘Schoolcommunities-school RT’ in schools affect the extent of collective participation?
As discussed in Section 5.5.1, public basic schools without JHS sections have suffered from low
school enrolment. Both Schools A and B have suffered from low school enrolment. However, there havebeen differences in sustaining school enrolment between the two schools.
While School A has sustained its enrolment over time, school enrolment at School B has stagnated.
Owing to public-private competition, and parents’ decisions to choose better learning environments, it
was difficult for the school to sustain their expected school enrolment that they were supposed toreceive from their surrounding geographical communities.
As shown in Table 10, school enrolment at School A had been stable at around 210 to 220, but had
declined to 160 in 2017. In the CTA (Community-Teachers-Association) general meetings, the schoolcommunities were worried about the decreasing trend in school enrolment (Feb 28, 2017; May 30,2017). Parents, pupils and teachers had unanimous views about decreasing school enrolment at grade 6.
The parents lamented this as follows:

P6 enrolment is not encouraging (at this moment 11). Attrition rate from P6 to JHS form 1
is high. As there are no JHS attached to the school, those who go to JHS have to go to ***,***, and *** (A20170925PA).

Thus, it is a critical challenge for School A to sustain school enrolment because neighboring basic
schools with JHS sections can attract pupils at the primary level.
The results showed some improvement. According to the photo records taken by the headteacher,the school enrolment written on the blackboard at the headteacher office, was 163 in April 2017, when
the headteacher was appointed to this school. In the record by the headteacher in July 2018, school
enrolment was 173. It should be noted that the number of enrolment varies depending on timing of datacollection. However, while surrounding schools with JHS sections increased their enrolment, a little
increase in school enrolment at School A showed a positive sign for school improvement.
On the contrary, school enrolment at School B fell to 55 in 2015, and has not since recovered to its
level in 2014. When I conducted the field visit at School B, there were only three classrooms, inaddition to the headteacher’s room. They conducted multi-grade teaching, owing to the limited numberof pupils (See Figure 25).

92

5.7.1 RT in 'Professional Capacity'
According to parents, School A suffered from a teacher shortage. In fact, School A had only six
teachers, including the headteacher, and the headteacher had to teach grade two. Grade five and six, as
well as grade three and four, were combined into one class respectively, owing to the teacher shortage.
The headteacher also had to teach Grade four by themselves. As a measure to address this challenge, theheadteacher planned to receive mentees, namely, student teachers from the nearby Akatsi College of
Education.
In Ghana, student teachers are deployed to schools, and then conduct their teaching practice for thewhole year. Schools receiving mentees should meet conditions such as providing free accommodation
nearby schools and this requires support from both parents and community members. According to therecords of the Akatsi College of Education, only 27 among 86 public basic schools in the district
received student teachers in 2017/2018 academic year. This means that not many schools were able tomeet such conditions. To respond to the headteacher’s expectations, the school communities performed
their obligations to provide free accommodations to student teachers, resulting in School A receiving six
student teachers in the academic year 2017/2018. The objective of receiving student teachers, was not toto provide alternative labour forces for the receiving schools, but to train and supervise them at the field.
However, receiving student teachers made a difference to School A, which was suffering from a teacher
shortage. The headteacher mentioned this as follows:

Student teachers bring effects, they teach Grade four in two persons, which I am teachingcurrently. We sit down and advise student teachers (A20180924HT).

The school communities performed their obligations to respond to the headteacher’s expectations.
This in turn lead to the school receiving student teachers, which acted as precious human resources for
School A, as they helped with the teacher shortage. As two student teachers were engaged in Grade four,
the headteacher no longer needed to teach Grade four, and could then concentrate on theiradministrative duty and their supervising role for the student teachers. As such, ‘Schoolcommunities-school RT’ seemed to be realized in 'Professional Capacity', to provide a better
environment to enable teachers to perform their professional capacity, owing to the collective
participation from the school communities.
‘Headteacher-teacher RT’ also seemed to be realized in 'Professional Capacity' at School A. Owing
to the previous headteacher’s frequent absence, teachers at School A tended to finish lessons by either
12 am or 1 pm, instead of finishing at 2pm. The current headteacher aimed to engender changes in the93teachers by acting as a role model to them. They mentioned that it is important for a headteacher thatteachers, guardians and pupils to come to school early, and perform their expected duties. Teachers,
guardians and pupils had a strong impression on this headteacher’s commitment, which represented a
sharp contrast with the previous headteacher. The teachers mentioned this as follows:

The previous teachers did not come to school but teacher came to school without problems.
The current head is more time conscious.

The headteacher used this strategy to change the school by making teachers being time conscious
and ready for instructional activities. Although the headteacher lived outside of the geographicalcommunities where the school was located, they came early to the school, vetted teachers’ lesson notes(Figure 17), checked the submission of lesson notes by teachers (Figure18) and recorded the arrival
times for all the teachers (Figure 19).

Figure 17. (upper left) A lesson note vetted by
the headteacher
Figure 18. (upper right) A checklist for
submissionofexpandedschemeworks(lesson notes)
Figure 19. (lower left) A checklist of weekly
teacher attendance

Pupils also described the headteacher’s behaviour as follows:

The headteacher work hard compared to the previous head. He is at school by 7am. He is thefirst teacher to come to school and he comes to school every day. The previous head did notcome to school.
94

The SMC executive members also echoed the teachers and pupils, stating that the headteacher
brought positive changes to make teachers come to school before classes start around 8am, and to closeat the official closing time at 2pm.

If teachers come to school, deliver lessons, and work until the official closing time, such teachers’commitment as human resources can be effectively utilized. Thus, teachers responded to theheadteacher’s expectations by changing their working behaviour, and performed their expected
obligations as teachers.

School B also suffered from a teacher shortage. According to the headteacher, the following events
showed that the lack of collective participation hindered 'Professional capacity' (B170201HT). First, theschool communities could not provide or rent accommodation for teachers within the geographicalcommunities near School B. One transferred teacher requested to stay within the geographicalcommunities, but this was not possible owing to a lack of accommodation. Second, School B could notreceive mentees from the Akatsi College of Education because the school communities could notprovide free accommodation. Third, the teachers expected to participate in workshops with feesorganized by the Ghana Association of Science Teachers (GAST). However, their expectations were not
met with obligations by the headteachers. This was because the headteacher could not obtain adequate
funds to sponsor their fees and transportation.

5.7.2 RT in 'Parent, School, Community Ties''Parent, School, Community Ties' include both collective participation as members of schoolcommunities and individual participation as individual parents. School A was able to enrich its school
finance by increasing the amount of PTA funds. The headteacher suggested collecting GHC 2 per pupils,
at the PTA general meeting in May 2017. They mentioned the necessity of increased PTA funds asfollows:

Besides capitation grant and PTA’s payment for KG attendant, I asked parents to pay GHC 2
per child per term. This money is used for maintenance of school building and pad locks forschools door to prevent pupils from coming after school. As capitation grant comes late andnot enough, this is a necessary arrangement at this moment (A170925HT).

As a result, it was agreed at the CTA meeting that this increase in the amount of PTA funds would95

be accepted (CTA meeting minutes, A180928). To respond to headteacher’s expectation for increased
PTA funds and decision-making at the CTA meeting, it was confirmed in the headteacher’s interview
that GHC 496 has been collected in academic year 2017/2018, which was far more than GHC 133.33,
the average amount of mobilized PTA funds from 2014 to 2016 (A180919HT). This shows that RT was
realized between the school communities and the school in terms of the 'Parent, School, Community
Ties'.

On the contrary, School communities-school RT was not realized in 'Parent, School, Community
ties' at School B. The historical background between its two geographical communities have prevented
School B from sustaining school enrolment and collective participation. The headteacher explained thisbackground as follows:

The participation of parents at the PTA general meeting is low. If the total number of parents is
100, the number of participants is around 15. Not all the SMC/PTA executive members cometo the meetings. Owing to dispute over the location of School C, some guardians decided not
to send their child to School C and more than 30 pupil moved to other school. Parents andcommunity members agreed but could not implement (B170201HT).

Even though the teachers highlighted the need to retain enrolment, parents could not meet suchexpectations, due to the lack of collective participation. The lack of RT in 'Parent, School, Community
Ties' affected its 'School Learning Climate', 'Professional Capacity' and 'Pedagogical Factors'. Moredetails are provided in the following sections.

5.7.3 RT in 'School Learning Climate''School Learning Climate' is regarded as the extent to which schools and classrooms are ready forteaching and learning, in terms of school infrastructure. School A enhanced its school learning climate
as a school facility, and its related programs. The future introduction of a school feeding program andthe necessity of constructing a JHS were discussed as methods to increase enrolment, and decisions
were made to take necessary actions to realize these programs. The headteacher mentioned that if theschool were to start a school feeding program, this would be attractive for children, and higher
enrolment would be expected. The headteacher stated their expectations regarding the school feeding
program as follows:96Sometimes pupils do not have concentration because they do not have breakfast. Unit
committee member, who is a member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) have discussed with
their stakeholders. With school feeding program, the school can attract more pupils. Somepupils who are residing in this community go to *** because of school feeding program.
Pupils like foods.

Figure 20. Outlook of school building (School A); Figure 21. Church building under construction (nextto school building) (School A)

The circuit supervisor in charge of this school pleaded to the assembly members to ensure that theschool feeding program would be introduced to the school, to enable children to stay in school. Parents
also mentioned that the unit committee representative was trying hard to bring the school feeding
program to this school. The Unit committee member promised that by the end of the year, the school
feeding program would be in this school.
In terms of the JHS facilities, the community members and parents expressed their desire toestablish a JHS. To respond to such expectations, the headteacher felt obliged to write letters to theDistrict Chief Executive and the District Director of Education to establish a JHS in this community.
The headteacher said that if they were to have a JHS here, those who were sending their children to
nearby schools, might come back to this school, meaning that school enrolment would increase. To
construct a JHS section at School A, an adequate enrolment for Primary Grade 6 is necessary. At thesame time, having a JHS will be attractive for parents to send their children to School A.
The introduction of the school feeding program and the construction of a JHS were extremely
selective, owing to the school’s limited budget, and they may depend on political decisions regardingwhether the school communities belong to the constituencies of the District Chief Executive. As it takessome time for these programs to be executed, a follow up investigation is needed to track the progressof these programs continuously. These narratives show that School A put the expectations and decisions
made by the school communities into practice, by way of utilizing the influence of the unit committee97

representative member or the assembly members.
Improving the school learning climate would be attractive for both pupils and teachers. School A
discussed that they had difficulties in implementing Information, Communication and Technology (ICT)classes without computers at the school. To respond to such demands, the headteacher and teachers
discussed purchasing a computer. They planned in their Action plan to have ICT classes four times in
the first term starting in September 2017. It was planned that the Japan Oversees Cooperation Volunteer,
who was dispatched to the Akatsi South district education office, would go around schools in the district
and instruct pupils how to use keyboards. After consultations between the headteacher and teachers, it
was reported at the CTA meeting that School A had purchased a laptop computer using the capitation
grant. The ICT classes were implemented as planned, and pupils had opportunities to learn how to use
computers. This enabled the teachers who had wished to purchase computers to implement ICT classes.

Figure 22. ICT lessons planned in the action plan in 2017/2018 (School A) (left); Figure 23. a purchased
laptop computer (School A) (right)

On the other hand, the low extent of collective participation had affected the 'School Learning Climate'.
According to the headteacher, health facilities were lacking, such as veronica pans, pipe-born water andclassrooms (B170201HT).
In addition, the headteacher proposed that classrooms for KG should be constructed to avoid theprimary classrooms being used as temporary measures. The SMC chairperson expressed their
expectation that the two geographical communities should reconcile their relationship, because KG
classrooms were to be constructed in the other geographical community, whereas School B is located at
the other geographical communities. It was agreed that KG classrooms should be constructed (PTA
general meeting, B20120517). However, it was discussed that the KG classrooms should not be built
away from the primary classrooms-they should be attached. As a result, the two geographicalcommunities could not reach consensus. Thus, a 'seven-person committee' was established to discuss
this issue with the chiefs and the elders (PTA general meeting, B20140212). However, the issue of KG
98

classrooms was mentioned on the agenda, but there was no report from the seven-person committee(PTA general meeting, B20151013). Finally, it was proposed by the SMC chairperson that the schoolcommunities needed to rely on external support such as NGOs to construct KG classrooms.
In addition, it was agreed that a KG attendant should be newly recruited, and the schoolcommunities mobilized 50 GHC in total, namely, 50 peswas per pupil for the KG attendant’s salary(PTA general meeting, B20140212). It was discussed again that this contribution must be mobilized to
pay for a KG attendant (PTA general meeting, B20151013). However, according to the headteacher, theextent of collective participation remained low, thus the school communities could not pay for the KG
attendant salary and the efforts to recruit a KG attendant have been suspended (B170201HT).

Figure 24. Outlook of school building(School B)(left); Figure 25. KG pupils mixed up in a primaryclass (School B) (right)

5.7.4 RT in 'Pedagogical factors''Pedagogical Factors' is considered as the extent of 'Time for Learning', 'Supplementary Resources'and 'Dynamics of Student Learning', composed of 'Motivation' and 'School Participation'. As teachersand pupils are part of the instructional triangle, I decomposed motivation into 'Teacher Motivation' and'Pupil Motivation'. Upon their appointment to the school in March 2017, in order to improve pupils’
school participation, the headteacher initiated a pedagogical activity. Pupils from Grade one to six weredivided into three groups, using the colours of red, green, and yellow. Pupils in different coloured
groups competed for marks by coming to school early, fetching water for the hand wash tank (Figure26), cleaning the school compound and getting dressed neatly. The results of their marks were written
on the blackboard (Figure 27) and the best group was praised every Friday. They received some prizes,
such as biscuits and drinks, at the end of each term. The headteacher consulted with teachers in terms ofthis activity, and teachers agreed to support it. For instance, the teachers agreed to implement thisactivity and supported efforts to raise some money for buying prizes. Teachers mentioned that thisinitiative was effective in its initial stage, but its effects have faded over times. Therefore, they need to99

restart the initiative to avoid pupils’ lateness in the new academic year, by providing more ideas fromteachers.

Figure 26. Hand Wash tank (several were observed in the school compound) (School A)(left); Figure 27.
Blackboard on the corridor, which shows scores of three groups (red, yellow, green) (School A) (right)

The case study showed that pupils had high motivation owing to the new development that theheadteacher brought. The interviewed pupils made positive remarks about the pedagogical activities at
School A, because pupils’ discipline was good, pupils were attentive to teachers and the teachers andstudent teachers taught their pupils well. Pupils mentioned that they needed to go to school, do
homework, and read books if they wanted to proceed to a higher level of education, or to get their jobs
in the future. Pupils were in favour of the headteacher’s initiative to introduce a computer to the school.
This implies that pupils who did not have access to computers at home, wanted to learn how to use acomputer at this school before proceeding to the nearby JHS, where they knew that there werecomputers for pupils to use. The headteacher’s leadership seemed to affect pupils’ high motivation forlearning, which was crucial for them to continue their enrolment at the primary school and proceed to
JHS.
On the contrary, it was discussed that parents requested teachers to provide evening classes for
pupils and supervise them during the classes. However, because teachers did not reside near School B,
the headteacher objected to the request, and as a result, pedagogical activities by teachers did not occur
in response to the expectations of guardians (PTA general meeting minutes, B120517).
The declining school enrolment seemed to be a demotivating factor for teachers. The headteacher
mentioned that the current enrolment is 87, which was not encouraging for teachers (B170201HT).
Generally speaking in Ghana, parents are more likely to send their children to schools with low
teacher-pupil ratios, because they do not want overcrowded classrooms (World Bank 2003). However,100

field observations and Figure 28 and 29 both showed that the number of pupils was far less than the
expected one, and that lessons were not active due to the limited number of pupils.

Figure 28. Lesson with low teacher-pupil ratio (School B) (left); Figure 29. Classroom occupied with afew pupils and lots of timbers (right) (School B)

In sum, the headteacher started their initiative to attract more pupils to School A and the schoolcommunities were able to respond to this initiative by meeting and mobilizing resources for school
development in the 'Parent, School, Community Ties' factor. In the 'Professional Capacity' factor, theschool communities also responded to the headteacher’s expectation to receive mentees by providing
free accommodations while teachers became committed to their work due to the headteacher’s working
attitude. This seemed to contribute to securing time for learning, which affected 'Pedagogical factors'.
The school feeding program, the construction of a JHS, and the purchase of a laptop computer in'School Learning Climate' were also meant to entice pupils from other schools. The headteacher
initiated pedagogical activities to let pupils attend school with pleasure, come on time without absence,and engaged with ICT. This in turn motivated pupils to learn more. The realization of RT andconnections between factors seemed to contribute to sustained school enrolment.

101

Figure 30. Structure of how relationships between actors and factors in school management lead tosustained school enrolment (School A)
Source: Author based on Bryk at al. (2010)

I wondered why sustained school enrolment was so important for the school communities at
School A. Parents had their own individual desires for their children to success in their life througheducation:

We want to our children to progress in their life. Even if they become farmers, they can makeagriculture more modernized through education...We want our kids to be teacher, nurse, somebody
responsible in the society, any government job (A180919PA).

One of the school communities members expressed its collective as to why they placed value ineducation, as follows:

School belongs to this community. Products (pupils) will be good materials to community(A180919PA).

This showed that the education for children was designed to create a future for their children, as
well as for the community. Thus, it was critical for parents and the school communities to sustain school
enrolment to provide a conducive learning environment for children.
102

On the other hand, School B could not realize RT in the 'Parent, School, Community Ties' factor
owing to the lack of collective participation which was rooted in the dispute over the school’s locations,which had continued since its establishment. The low extent of collective participation hindered otherfactors, and made RT unrealized. Thus, the teacher shortage has not been addressed, due to a lack ofsupport from the school communities in the 'Professional Capacity' factor; evening classes for pupils’learning were not organized in 'Pedagogical factors'. Furthermore, the KG classroom was notconstructed and payment for a KG attendant was not able to be realized. The failure to realize RT
became a vicious cycle of school management, where the low extent of collective participation was
accompanied by low school enrolment, and vice-versa.

Figure 31. Structure of how relationships between actors and factors in school management lead to
decline school enrolment (School B)
Source: Author based on Bryk at al. (2010)

Finally, I would like to answer the following questions raised by the quantitative study: 1) Why did
School A, with less SES, have a higher school enrolment? 2) Why was it that the higher collective
participation was in schools, the higher school enrolment was?, 3) How did higher ‘Schoolcommunities-school RT’ affect the extent of collective participation in schools? School A was locatedabove the correlation line between SES and school enrolment. This means that School A had relatively
higher enrolment, despite its low SES. This implies that collectives of school communities and its
fragile households (as its constituents) - who both had lower SES, could sustain school enrolment by103

working collectively.
Comparing School A with School B, the realization of ‘School communities-school RT’ determinedthe extent of collective participation. School A’s community believed that School A belonged to them,and anticipated that pupils would be a good investment for their community. Thus, they expectedschools to do something, and felt obliged to support the school when the headteacher expected it ofthem. On the other hand, School B’ school communities have been divided owing to the dispute over theschool’s location. Thus, even though the headteacher expected the school communities to do something
to retain school enrolment, the school communities agreed to do something but then could not put that
into practice.
Moreover, because collective participation was available at School A, it affected other factors inschool management, which were geared toward sustaining school enrolment, triggered by theheadteacher’s initiative. On the contrary, the lack of collective participation at School B hindered otherfactors in school management, which created a vicious cycle between collective participation and school
enrolment. This illustrated how collective participation can or cannot lead to school enrolment.

5.8 Findings from a case study of schools coping with pupils’ discipline as a critical challenge
As stated in Section 3.2.5, pupils’ indiscipline has become a major concern for guardians in Ghana.
It is difficult to quantify the extent of pupils’ indiscipline, unlike the BECE results and school enrolment.
However, pupils’ indiscipline seems to be a symbolic phenomenon, which can influence learning
outcomes (owing to a lack of pupils’ motivation to learn), and school enrolment (owing to a lack ofpupils’ willingness for school participation). Thus, it is significant to identify how school communities,
guardians and teachers can address pupils’ indiscipline through the realization of RT.
Pupils’ indiscipline, as exhibited in this case study, includes the following: lack of respect forteachers, not listening to teachers and guardians, not doing homework, running out of schools after
break, watching TV at night and going out for social events, including the funerals. As any corporalpunishment, including the use of cane, has been banned in Ghana since 2016, how to discipline pupils
without using the cane has become a serious concern for school communities and schools.

5.8.1 RT in 'Professional Capacity''Professional Capacity' is defined as the extent to which schools have an adequate quality andnumber of professional teachers, and whether teachers (including the headteacher) have a common
understanding to achieve educational outcomes.Teachers associated pupils’ indiscipline with divides in
geographical and school communities and lamented this as follows:104Children also carries the same mentality with parents... Indiscipline comes from home too... If
parents talk negatively about teachers, pupils do not listen to teaches at school(A20170926TC).

At school D, the headteacher insisted that they needed to adhere to the directive as a unit of thelocal educational administration. However, teachers believed that it was necessary for the disciplining of
pupils should be continued. One teacher described this situation as follows:As teacher, I made a pupil who misbehaved stand outside the classroom but the headteacher
said that I should not do that... If teachers do not get necessary support, teachers hesitate to dowhat they thought should do (A20180920TC).

Another teacher described their experience as follows:

The use of cane is not necessarily must. But when my child did offense, I will warn them once
and twice but next time I will tell them why you are caned and did it (A20180920TC).

Views on how to discipline pupils seemed to differ between the headteacher and teachers at School
D. Teachers placed more importance on showing their authority to discipline pupils - even using thecane, if necessary, - because pupils’ indiscipline was the most challenging issue for them.
Both headteachers in Schools A and D had the same view - that teachers should not use the caneanymore and should find other ways of disciplining pupils. However, there were differences between
Schools A and D in terms of how teachers reacted to their headteachers’ views. While teachers at School
A thought that pupils’ discipline was secured, owing to collaboration between the geographical andschool communities, teachers at School D had to rely on the cane as the last resort to discipline pupils,
owing to a lack of parenting by guardians.

5.8.2 RT in 'Parent, School, Community Ties''Parent, School, Community Ties' includes both collective participation, as members of schoolcommunities, and individual participation, as individual parents. School communities in both Schools A
and D argued with the headteacher and teachers regarding how they responded to the government
directive that banned any corporal punishment, including the use of the cane. However, there were clear
105differences between these two in terms of how they came to a consensus through dialogues and how
they put their decisions into practice.
School A discussed at PTA general meetings the issue of pupils’ disrespect for guardians at home,and pupils’ indiscipline. Guardians expected teachers to discipline pupils using the cane when they
misbehaved. Some guardians argued that if the school adhered to the directive, they would be forced totransfer their children to other schools (CTA Meeting Minutes, A20180518).
Some teachers also objected to the directive and some referred to the Bible, which permits
necessary punishment for misbehaving children . Other teachers doubted the effects of punishment
without pain (e.g. raising their hands for five minutes), and they insisted that they could not agree withthe banning of the cane (CTA Meeting Minutes, A20180518).
To respond to these arguments by guardians and teachers, the headteacher emphasized that they did
not need to use the cane, but rather advised that pupils, teachers and guardians should have cordial
relationships. They also explained that any corporal punishment would be illegal and that if teachers
punished pupils, then guardians might sue teachers. Thus they needed to find out ways to discipline
pupils without using the cane (CTA Meeting Minutes, A20180518).
After diverse and sometimes conflicting opinions expressed by the guardians, teachers, theheadteacher and a circuit supervisor, it seemed that guardians had the view that if pupils committed any
offenses, guardians should be invited to school to understand why their children should be disciplined.
This implies that school-level stakeholders at School A came to understand, after a series of discussions,that they should have dialogues without caning pupils.
In addition, the geographical communities for School A had functioned so as to reinforce theschool communities’ decisions over pupils’ discipline to all the community members regardless of theexistence of pupils. One SMC executive member mentioned this as follows:

During the PTA meeting, guardians requested teachers to give more homework to make pupils
engaged with learning. In addition to that, they passed a resolution that no child is allowed to
go to neighbourhood to watch TV. If they do not adhere to this rule, those guardians will besanctioned. Such decisions taken at the PTA meeting were conveyed to all the members in
geographicalcommunities

throughacommunity

announcer

using

a

megaphone(A20180919PA).

On the other hand, the school communities at School D did not have the opportunities to discuss
pupils’ discipline with the headteacher and teachers, and could not agree on any measures to be taken
106

owing to the community divide. The headteacher insisted that guardians should monitor their children to
make sure that they did not go out at night and/or weekends, or watch TV. Despite such appeals by theheadteacher, pupils’ indiscipline became more serious, without support from guardians and geographicalcommunities. From the viewpoint of the teachers, pupils were affected by the community divide that
their parents were engaged with.
Parents noticed that the PTA chairperson and the SMC chairperson came from the chief’s side, andso parents on the other side did not come due to that reason. This affected children’s learning greatly.
Sometimes, due to this issue, some pupils did not appreciate themselves.

5.8.3 RT in 'School Learning Climate' and 'Pedagogy Factors''School Learning Climate' is regarded as the extent to which schools and classrooms are safe andorderly, in terms of the school atmosphere. 'Pedagogical Factors' is considered to represent the extent of'Time for Learning', 'Supplementary Resources' and 'Dynamics of Student Learning', composed of'Motivation' and 'School Participation'. As teachers and pupils are part of the instructional triangle, I
considered motivation to include both 'Teacher Motivation' and 'Pupil Motivation'.

In terms of ‘Teacher-parent RT’, at School A, both teachers and parents regarded that pupils’discipline was good, owing to contributions from each side. One guardian recalled teachers’ teachers’
contributions to pupils’ discipline as follows:

Pupils greet parents when they come back home, go and eat, do homework. This is because
teachers made impacts on pupils and teachers are more committed to do their work
(A20180919PA).

One pupil also stated that pupils were committed to learning at School A, as follows:

Discipline at this school is good. Pupils are attentive to teachers....Before the assembly starts
at 8am, we sweep in the compound, fetch water for washing tanks, read English books. Pupils
greet community people here (A20180924PU).

Finally, one of teachers also mentioned the followings:

Behaviour of pupils is good. They respect teachers. Students fetch water for teachers (who107

stay in surrounding community of the school). Level of learning is good. They are ready toschool on time and ready to learn (A20170925TC).

These narratives show that guardians, pupils and teachers at School A seemed to have theunanimous views that the school’s atmosphere was good because of the pupils’ behaviour, and that they
were ready for learning. This shows that 'School Learning Climate' and 'Pedagogical factors' were wellaligned. This also implies that ‘Teacher-parent RT’ over pupils’ discipline was realized, as they expected
others to play their responsibilities and felt obliged to make their contributions to the other side.

Figure 32. Structure of how relationships between actors and factors in school management lead topupils’ discipline (School A)
Source: Author based on Bryk at al. (2010)

On the other hand, at School D, pupils’ discipline has become a major issue. One pupil confessed
the followings:

Some pupils do not respect teachers because some overaged students work after the school(such as motor riders) and get some money (A20180920PU).

Teachers also observed that pupils were not committed to learning owing to the lack of guardians’
care and supervision from their guardians. One teacher made the following comment:108

If children is serious about picking up learning, it motivates teachers to do more. (...) Pupils
do not see the necessity to learn. Some of them have textbooks but they are not serious about
education, they watch TV at home without study (...) Parents should take care of their wards
providing their needs before they come to school. This will make children feel happy andconcentrate on learning (A20170926TC).

Teachers saw that the lack of guardians’ support was behind the pupils’ indiscipline. A teachers at
School D mentioned as follows.

Indiscipline comes from home too. If parents talk negatively about teachers, pupils do notlisten to teaches at school (A20170926TC).

The guardians, headteacher, teachers and pupils at School D all had the unanimous view that pupils,
especially some overaged pupils, did not listen to and respect teachers. Teachers mentioned that pupils
carried the same mentality with their guardians, who were divided owing to the community divide.
Thus,'School Learning Climate' was affected by a lack of 'Parent, School, Community Ties'.
The suspension of school excursions implied a lack of a conducive 'School Learning Climate'.
School excursions were discussed on the agenda, but were postponed owing to a lack of funds (June andOctober 2015; February and June 2016). The inability of School D to conduct school excursions
demotivated pupils and teachers. A JHS grade three pupil recalled the suspension of school excursions
as sad news, and wished that it could take place again. One primary teacher shared that when she talked
to her pupils about school excursions, they said that they did not have the money for the excursions.
This implies that the suspension of school excursions, induced by lack of collective participation,
seriously affected 'Pedagogical factors' in terms of pupils’ and teachers’ motivation.
The community divide seemed to make the school communities lose their collective space todiscuss the issues of pupils’ discipline and its preventive measures at School D. This could haveinfluenced individual parenting to discipline pupils as well. Without reinforcement from thegeographical and school communities, as well as guardians’ support, the teachers also felt vulnerable incoping with pupils’ indiscipline.

109

Figure 33. Structure of how relationships between actors and factors in school management lead topupils’ indiscipline (School D)
Source: Author based on Bryk at al. (2010)

5.9 Summary of Chapter 5This chapter revealed how the BECE mean aggregate and school enrolment are related withsocio-economic status, collective participation and RT through the quantitative analysis. Moreover,through the qualitative analysis of the case studies, I was able to examine the process how schools
achieve (or fail to achieve) the BECE mean aggregate, school enrolment, and pupils’ discipline. With
the analytical lens of RT, it was revealed that the existence/lack of RT between actors in factors ofschool management, was critical in generating educational outcomes. Literature have argued thathouseholds with lower SES is unlikely to participate in school management. However, this dissertationsuggested that even school communities with lower SES can achieve high extent of collective
participation and improved educational outcomes.

In the next chapter, I will discuss findings compared to the literature and share this dissertations’contributions to literature and implications for the system of community participation in school
management.

110Chapter 6: Conclusions and discussions
In this chapter, I summarize the findings responding to each research question (Section 6.1),
discuss what this dissertation can contribute to literature (Section 6.2), explore the implications forpolices and practices (Section 6.3) and state the limitations (Section 6.4), the suggestions for further
study (Section 6.5), and the concluding note (Section 6.6).

6.1 Summary of findings
Based on the conceptual framework (Figure 34), I present the key findings that answer thefollowing research questions:
Research Question 1) To what extent does community participation function in school management?
Research Question 2) To what extent are community participation, socio-economic status (SES),
educational outcomes, and RT related?
Research Question 3) How is RT realized between actors and in factors of school management togenerate educational outcomes?

Figure 34. Conceptual framework (Source: Author, recite Figure 2)

Regarding RQ1, this dissertation showed that the approach of community participation with theprinciple of representative democracy was flawed, owing to the limited scope of SPIP consultation anddelays in CG disbursement. Instead, community participation with the principle of consensual
democracy was found to be active, in the form of the number of PTA general meeting participants and111

the amount of PTA funds. Essuman (2013) described that support from SMCs or PTAs filled the gap
that was created as a result of government fiscal deficits and delays in the transfer of funds to schools.
Findings from this dissertation echoed with his statement. This implies that when we analyse
community participation, it is necessary to pay attentions to not only the representative democracy fordecision making in school management, but also the consensual democracy, which has played a criticalrole in supporting schools since their establishment.
RQ2 and RQ3 are complementary in a sense that RQ2 addresses the quantitative analysis while
RQ3 concerns the qualitative analysis. Together they reveal how and why RT matters to educational
outcomes and factors in school management. First, contrary to the hypothesis, increased RT did notnecessarily secure better learning outcomes, when collective participation was controlled for. In thisdissertation, to avoid correlations among independent variables, collective participation indicators were
integrated into a composite collective indicator. I would like to interpret this result as follows. The
effects of RT on learning outcomes may be different depending on whether RT is measured at the schoollevel or at the individual level, or on how RT is defined and how its composite variable is developed.
Second, I examined the relationship between RT and learning outcomes. The correlation analysis
showed that teacher-parent RT was negatively related (statistically significant) to the BECE mean
aggregate. This means that the higher the ‘Teacher-parent RT’, the better the learning outcomes.
Carolan-Silva (2011) pointed out that parents in rural areas in developing countries tended to prefercollective participation to individual participation, which required them to take care of pupils’ learning
at home. However, this dissertation showed that ‘Teacher-parent RT’, which dealt with individual
participation, was related to better learning outcomes. The question as to why such a relationshipoccurred is addressed in the next paragraph.
The qualitative analysis gave some clues as to which factors of school management RT should be
realized to yield learning outcomes. The first qualitative case study shed light on why a high-performing
school in a rural area, experienced a rapid decline in its learning outcomes. It was found that the school
was suffered from a community divide, owing to a dispute over the legitimacy of chieftaincy. The lackof ‘School communities-school RT’ affected the extent of collective participation, which seemed to be
one of critical indicators of the 'Parent, School, Community Ties' factor. This failure regarding
managerial factors led to a lack of support for school development, which affected the pedagogicalfactors - including 'Time for learning', 'Supplementary resources' and 'Pupils’ school participation'. Thisseemed to result in decline in learning outcomes. In addition, the third case study showed that the lackof ‘Teacher-parent RT’ was associated with the low extent of pupils’ motivation, guardians’ support andteachers’ motivation. These were included in the ‘Pedagogical factors’, which directly affects pupils’112learning outcomes. These findings contributed to revealing why ‘Teacher-parent RT’ was related tobetter learning outcomes.
Third, this dissertation revealed that school enrolment depended on the extent of collective
participation. In the quantitative study, school enrolment is positively correlated (statistically significant)with the collective participation composite variable. This showed that the larger collective participation,
the more school enrolment is available. This seemed to be a common sense in urban areas, however, it isimportant for schools in rural areas to sustain or increase school enrolment as shown in Table 10.
Conversely, increasing the school enrolment is an important strategy for generating more collective
participation in the form of PTA funds, which becomes a driver for school development.
The second qualitative case study showed that one school had sustained or increased school
enrolment, while the other school, though in similar rural settings, experienced stagnated school
enrolment. The headteacher of the case study school developed an initiative to address the school’s low
enrolment. The school communities responded to the headteacher’s expectations and mobilized
resources for school development, in line with their obligations. Thus, ‘School communities-school RT’
was realized in the 'Parent, School, Community Ties' factor, which was equivalent with collective
participation, namely, attending meetings and paying for PTA funds. With such collective participation
after realization of the ‘School communities-school RT’, it was possible for the school and the schoolcommunities to work towards improving school enrolment. It was also found that the existence of‘Headteacher-teacher RT’ matters in promoting teachers’ engagement with increased school enrolment.
At School A, the headteacher expected teachers to improve their working attitude, conduct pedagogicalactivities for pupils to come to school without delay or absence. With the headteacher’s leadership andcommitment, teachers, in return, felt obliged to respond to such expectations by showing theircommitment to pedagogical activities. Literature have argued that individual households’
socio-economic status will affect the extent of their involvement with school affairs. However, thisdissertation revealed that school communities with less endowed socio-economic status could achievesome extent of collective participation through realizing RT. This can be interpreted as a survival
strategy for socially and economically fragile individual households in developing countries to enjoy
collective benefits through the participation in school communities.
Fourth, this dissertation revealed how pupils’ discipline was affected by each of the school
management factors, depending on the realization of RT. The last qualitative case study showed how
division in geographical communities caused declining 'Parent, School, Community Ties', which also
resulted in a lack of the 'Pedagogical factors', such as the decreased motivations for teachers, guardiansand pupils. The directive that banned corporal punishment, including the use of the cane, affected all the113schools in Ghana. However, the two case-study schools enacted different responses in terms of pupils’discipline. It was found that these two schools had different levels of RT regarding whether they could
avoid conflicts through dialogue with school-level stakeholders. At School A, school-level stakeholders
were able to reach a certain level of common understanding with regards to not using the cane, as theresults of thorough discussions in the school communities. The geographical communities also ensured
that decision-making at the school communities was executed in all the households. In this school,
where the managerial factors were functional, guardians, teachers and pupils unanimously put highvalue on pupils’ discipline. On the other hand, School D, where the geographical communities weredivided owing to a dispute over the legitimacy of chieftaincy, the managerial factors that the schoolcommunities had - meetings and mobilized resources - were in decline. Thus, the school communities
could not have opportunities to discuss with the headteacher and teachers to find out solutions to pupils’discipline. This case study highlighted the significance of RT among school-level stakeholders on
pupils’ discipline.

6.2 Contribution to literatureThis dissertation can fill in research gaps concerning both methodological and substantial aspects.
Regarding methodological aspects, this dissertation contributed to measuring RT in both quantitativeand qualitative ways. Unlike Bryk & Schneider (2002), who measured the extent of RT, based on
criteria for discernment, Tsyuyuguchi (2016) measured RT by focusing on parents’ trust in schools, withemphasis on the synchronies in mutual expectations and obligations. This dissertation followed
Tsuyuguchi (2016) in its quantitative analysis, but at the same time, it attempted to reveal research gaps
in a qualitative manner, regarding why expectations were met or unmet with obligations. Neither Bryk
& Schneider (2002) nor Tsuyuguchi (2016) extended their studies to cover this approach. The
qualitative analysis conducted in this dissertation showed that expectations and obligations from one
party to the other party induced obligations from the other party. This finding is aligned with how
Tsyuguchi (2016) measured the extent of RT. However, this dissertation methodologically contributed to
the literature by uncovering the extent of RT in other role relationships and its relationship witheducational outcomes.
In terms of its substantial aspect, this dissertation contributed to answering the following broad
question: how and why is RT formulated in the process of school management? To put it more tangibly,
this dissertation responded to the following questions from both theoretical and practical perspectives: 1)
how RT links factors and actors in school management to yield educational outcomes; 2) how RT occurs
as the mutual accountability among school-level stakeholders; 3) how RT is perceived as an interplay
114

among participation, leadership and accountability; 4) how RT can make pupils the subject of learningand 5) how RT can bridge the relationship between the individual households and collectives of schoolcommunities. Narratives from the theoretical perspective are described from Sections 6.2.1 to 6.2.5,
while those from the practical perspective are from Sections 6.3.1 to 6.3.5.

6.2.1 RT as ‘harness’ of actors and factors in school management toward educational
outcomes
There is a research gap in school-based management literature regarding the mechanism throughwhich community participation in school management will lead to educational outcomes. In particular,
it is not yet known how managerial and pedagogical factors should be linked to yield educational
outcomes, especially in the context of developing countries that are experiencing severe resource
scarcity.
This dissertation showed three case studies of two schools with differing educational
outcomes.What determined these differences was whether a chain of RT between actors occurred in thefactors of school management. In all case studies, the realization of RT in the 'Parent, School,
Community Ties' affected the realization of RT in other factors, resulting in success or failure of
educational outcomes.
This dissertation contributed to filling research gaps regarding how RT links factors and actors inschool management to yield educational outcomes. As RT is realized in one factor as synchronies inmutual expectations and obligations, it can produce RT in other factors in school management. Wheneducational outcomes are achieved as a series of RT, this provides a foundation for forthcoming RT.
This is how RT is formulated as a harness of actors and factors in the process of school management.

6.2.2 RT as ‘mutual accountability’ among guardians, school communities, school, andgovernment
Studies have criticized the WDR 2003 accountability framework as a one-way accountability routefrom parents to schools, and have asserted the necessity of the mutual accountability, in which schoolcommunities become both clients and service providers. However, there is a research gap in theliterature regarding whether the mutual accountability occurs among various school-level stakeholders,and in which relationships it occurs.
Here I suggest that it is necessary for school communities to not only expect schools to performbetter but also to be obliged to support schools and/or teachers. The case of School B showed that
school communities agreed to implement the actions discussed at the PTA meetings, but could not put
115them into practice. The case of School D also highlighted that school excursions had been suspended
owing to a lack of collective participation, despite frequent discussions over the topic. This suggests thatthe mutual accountability, where school-level stakeholders can be both clients and service providers, isnecessary, as emphasized by Nishimura (2018). Essuman (2013) stressed that schools can demandparents to pay for PTA funds as their accountability to schools. Thus, this finding suggests that schoolcommunities should be accountable to schools for providing support, in tandem with having
expectations to schools, to realize RT.

Figure 35. How RT is realized with children being at the center both at collective and individual
participation
Source: Author

School A’ s case showed that, with synchronies in expectations and obligations from the schoolcommunities to the school, the headteacher conducted their initiatives to improve school enrolment incollaboration with teachers. As a result, the school communities members became aware of the school’s
improved enrolment, which they attributed to the school’s contribution. The difference between Figure 3
and Figure 35 is that obligations from one side to the other side will not occur automatically because
expectations from the other side are given, but rather because both expectations and obligations fromone side to the other make obligations from the other side occur. This provides an important implication
for school communities in developing countries under resource scarcity. Expectation and obligations
have been synchronized when school communities have expected schools to perform, and havecontributed individual households’ scarce resources to collective participation in school communities. In
these scenarios, headteacher and teachers seem to feel obliged to be accountable to the schoolcommunities for the school and teachers’ performance. In summary, this dissertation contributed to116

filling in research gaps regarding how mutual accountability among school-level stakeholders will occur
through the analytical lens of RT.

6.2.3 RT as ‘interplay’ among leadership, participation, and accountability
There exists a research gap regarding how leadership, participation and accountability will work intandem in role relationships and factors in school management.
This dissertation revealed that leadership, participation and accountability should be interpreted asa series of perceived conducts of expectations and/or obligations in each RT. For instance, the first casestudy showed that without community leadership and support, teachers did not feel that they were
obliged to play their expected roles to enhance pupils’ learning, and that they should be accountable tothe school communities for pupils’ performance. Moreover, in the second case study, the headteacher
initiated leadership on sustaining school enrolment, and expected the school communities to mobilize
PTA funds for school development. The school communities in return mobilized PTA funds via
collective participation, and showed their accountability to the headteacher’s leadership.
The third case study revealed a sharp comparison between schools in terms of the availability ofRT, shown as the nexus of leadership, participation and accountability. At School A, the headteacher
took leadership by considering measures to discipline pupils without the use of a cane, and the schoolcommunities discussed issues collectively and became accountable to such leadership by reinforcing
collective decisions of the school communities to all the geographical community members. On thecontrary, School D was not able to have a collective space to discuss pupils’ discipline and its
preventive measures, owing to the community divide. Thus, despite the headteacher’s leadership,participation did not occur, nor was accountability put in place to respond to such leadership.
This dissertation contributes to revealing how leadership, participation and accountability work intandem in role relationships, and in the factors of school management. It also contributes to determining
what develops teachers’ responsibilities to produce higher student achievements, and to determining
how school leadership and community leadership influence community participation in school
management, a question raised by Taniguchi & Hirakawa (2016). This dissertation reveals how RT isperceived as an interplay among leadership, participation, leadership and accountability.

6.2.4 RT as ‘catalysis’ to make pupils the subject of learning
There is a research gap regarding how students will be motivated to learn as the subject of learning,
through the interaction with the school communities, the headteacher, the teachers and their guardians.
This dissertation reveals that students are motivated to come to school and learn when RT is117

realized with children being at the centre of synchronies in mutual expectations and obligations, both atthe levels of collective and individual participation as shown in Figure 35. The contrast between
Schools A and D showed that pupils’ motivation will be affected by the availability of the ‘Schoolcommunities-school RT’, as well as ‘Teacher-parent RT’. Studies have detailed the significance ofreciprocal relationships, two-way communications, and mutual accountability between schoolcommunities and schools (Adu 2016; Essuman 2013; Nishimura 2018). Although this dissertation
revealed the significance of teacher-parent RT on learning outcomes, there are consistent perception
gaps between teachers and parents in terms of participation in the pedagogical aspect. Carolan-Silva(2011) found that teachers were critical of parents’ lack of participation in children’s education at home,while parents felt that it was hard to teach pupils at home because they did not understand what thepupils were learning. Thus, it is crucial to determine how to fill in such gaps between parents andteachers.
Against such a research gap, this dissertation revealed that if RT works in managerial andpedagogical factors, with children being at the centre. This encourages teachers and guardians to havereciprocal relationship for the benefit of pupils, which also motivates pupils to be engaged withschooling. Studies have argued that parents/guardians and community members can holdheadteacher/teachers accountable for their performance. However, pupils were not included in the scopeof previous research, and had only been discussed as the object of learning, shown as learningachievement or school enrolment. Thus, this dissertation contributed to unpacking the significance ofRT, which can make pupils as the subject of learning.

6.2.5 RT as ‘social capital’ that make individuals under diversity and fragility formulate
collectives of community
A further critical research gap concerns knowing whether social capital exists within schoolcommunities or wider geographical community, and knowing how the individual households andcollectives of school communities interact with each other .
This dissertation has analysed the relationships between individuals, school communities, andgeographical communities, and revealed the complexity of politics within geographical communities
and the potentials of RT through education toward community development. This sheds light onlimitations and strengths of social capital at the collective level, which also affect social capital at theindividual level and disparities among the individuals.

118

6.2.5.1 Complexity of politics within geographical communities
First, this dissertation revealed that school communities would not work without the solid
foundation of geographical communities. For instance, Schools B and School D in case studies showedthat geographical communities does not necessarily maintain a sense of collectivity, which seriously
affected school communities. It appeared as divides among guardians, among pupils, and between
teachers and pupils. This finding resonates with what Pryor (2005) argued in the case of Ghana.
According to him, social capital is not necessarily inherent within the community collectively owing tomigration and the disintegration of matrilineal family structure, rather, social capital is used to further
the interests of individual families. Under circumstance in this dissertation that geographicalcommunities do not meet and mobilize resources for annual festival as a symbol of togetherness owing
to the chieftaincy issue, there is the limitation of schooling that is buttressed with a sense of
togetherness toward shared goals of educating children. Politics within geographical communities may
be historically rooted and stem from the conflicts over ethnicity, the political power balance, and thehistory, ownership and location of schools. Though international literature have not touched this aspect,
this dissertation acknowledged the complexity of politics within geographical and school communities
as important contextual background.
Second, this dissertation suggests the potential of RT through education toward community
development. Heyneman (2003) discussed the contributions of schools to social cohesion via thefollowing aspects: teaching rule of games, decreasing the distance between individuals of different
origins, providing equal opportunities for all students and incorporating the interests and objectives ofdifferent groups and providing a common underpinning for citizenship. Komatsu (2014) discussed theschools’ role of promoting social cohesion in Bosnia and Herzegovina where different ethnic groups had
civil wars in the past and are still undergoing the process of reconciliation. This suggests that it isnecessary to go beyond the conceptual framework (Figure 34) that defines learning outcomes, school
enrolment and pupils discipline as goals for school management, and states community/parent
participation as its instrument to achieve these goals. Educational outcomes in a divisive community
should be revisited to include social cohesion among different groups, which contributes to community
development or community reconstruction in the future. It will be a positive sign from School D that theyouth, graduates from the school, came together to meet and talk with both sides of chiefs and elders tosolve the chieftaincy issue. Thus, this dissertation contributes to presenting viewpoints not only from the
instrumental approach that community should participate in school management to produce educational
outcomes, but also from the stance that education itself, or pupils and the youth as products of education,must play a role for community development.
1196.2.5.2 RT as the new potential of social capitalThis dissertation also sheds light on significance for the individual households to join collectives ofschool communities. As described in 6.2.5.1, geographical communities are not homogeneous andsocial capital at the collective level is not necessarily inherent within the community surrounding
schools. In this circumstances, individuals have to rely social capital at the individual level, including
family or personal network as Coleman (1988) asserted. This will make fragile individuals without suchsocial capital more vulnerable in the society, which result in widening regional and educational
disparities.
As stated in Section 3.5.3, it is worthwhile to investigate whether the extent of community
participation in terms of PTA funds depend on the sum of individual wealth or on the collective powersof fragile individuals. In the case studies of Schools A and School C, the school communities werecomprised of fragile households who suffered from resource scarcity, owing to a relatively lower SES
than the district average. Guardians were not necessarily children’s biological parents and had diverse
background in terms of their commitment to education. There was no fixed mechanism in which
decisions were made according to agendas without objections, but rather a flexible space that allowed
participants to raise what they were concerned about in relation to their children and their schools.
This is an important finding to Putnam’s social capital theory which various developed anddeveloping countries have relied on in the establishment of democratic institutions such as SMCs. As
Selle & Kristin (1999) and Suetomi (2005) argued, social capital has been built on Putanam’s notion ofparticipatory democracy. Democratic institutions in this contemporary era have faced the following
challenges. First, while Putnam assumed that people were willing to join collectives of community
autonomously, parents, especially in urban areas do not feel the necessity of collective actions because
they are busy with their work or because they can support their child individually. Second, equal
membership requires the same burden on their members, regardless of their work and circumstances.
This becomes challenging for households working in double harness, who do not have time to engage
themselves with school matters. Third, under such circumstances, while core members may be actively
engaged with school management, others may be busy with their jobs, and may therefore become
marginalized because they are not actively involved.
Nyamnjoh (2016) asserted that incomplete individuals formulate collectives of community withdiverse backgrounds, and in a flexible manner in which individuals depend on each other in African
societies. These characteristics of social capital differ from those of Putnam, who asserted that
individuals join collectives through autonomous will, and that there is equal membership in a fixedmanner. Although more studies are necessary for generalization in African societies, this dissertation
120

contributed to illuminating RT as a new form of social capital, which is characterized by fragility,
diversity and flexibility, based on an African cultural context.
This dissertation also shows that individual households’ awareness and actions are discussed andrequired at collective spaces. This implies that it is not only fragile individual households thatparticipate in school communities to seek social capital as a collective good, but also that the social
capital of collectives will affect individual households’ awareness and actions for improving their childat home and their preparation for pupils’ school participation. It is worthwhile to investigate further how
the awareness of collective and individual participation are related. In sum, this dissertation contributes
to revealing how RT can bridge the relationship between the individual households under diversity andfragility, and the collectives of school communities.

6.3 Implication for the system of community participation in school management
This dissertation has revealed that the system of community participation in school management in
Ghana, based on the participatory democracy of Western society, had flaws, while the indigenous
geographical communities rooted were still playing an active role. This can provide some operational
implications for the system of community participation in school management in Ghana, and in othercountries.

6.3.1 The need to formulate RT by matching active headteachers with supportive schoolcommunities
As described in Section 6.2.1, this dissertation shows that headteacher’ leadership is significant inrealizing RT with school communities and teachers in both managerial and pedagogical factors. The
teaching profession in the basic education sector in Ghana is often considered to be a stepping stone fora future career. A headteacher position does not seem to be attractive for teachers, due to the lack of
incentives and the difficulties that they face. Experienced teachers tend to work in urban schools,
considering their life environment. Okitsu & Edwards (2017) argued that teachers are not held
accountable, owing to their survival needs. Thus, it is critical to match active headteachers with schoolcommunities that can support headteachers, so as to overcome their survival needs. Such support may
attract headteachers to be deployed to rural areas. For instance, providing free accommodations closer toschools seems to be effective for headteachers, because it can reduce accommodation and transportation
costs. The district education offices can deploy even younger headteachers to rural schools, with thecondition that geographical and school communities promise to support headteachers’ accommodations.
Capacity building opportunities will also be helpful for headteachers to develop relationships with their121teachers, as well as geographical and school communities.

6.3.2 The need to retain RT as multiple sets of mutual accountability
As stated in Section 6.2.2, this dissertation has revealed that realizing RT is identical to fulfilling
mutual accountability in various relationships among school-level stakeholders. Thus, it is necessary tohave the multiple sets of mutual accountability for better school management and improved educational
outcomes. In the existing conceptual framework of community participation in school management, it isassumed that while schools receive the capitation grant from the government, school communities aresupposed to hold schools accountable for their performance. However, this assumption did not hold true,
owing to the delay of the capitation grant being delivered, which meant that schools were notaccountable for their performance. The assumption also did not work because school communitiespressured schools to perform better by way of participating in school management. Without support
from their school communities, schools do not feel obliged to perform their expected duties, thus failingto realize RT. Therefore, to hold schools accountable to their school communities regarding
performance, it is necessary for school communities to not only expect schools to perform better, butalso to support schools. It is also necessary for schools to hold school communities accountable forpromoting school construction or introducing school feeding programs, as this dissertation has shown.
In this case, mutual accountability - in which both schools and school communities are held accountableto each other - is a key. There are multiple possibilities for the mutual accountability, depending on thefollowing source of revenues: District Assembly’s funds, PTA funds, town development committee
funds and support from related stakeholders. In summary, multiple sets of mutual accountability are
critical for schools and school communities to sustain daily school management, without solely
depending on the capitation grant.

6.3.3 The need to sustain a chain of RT in the existing system of institutionalized community
participation
Following the theoretical claim described in Section 6.2.3, it is also necessary to sustain a chain of
conducts, composed of leadership, participation and accountability in the operational works. In otherwords, it is necessary to sustain a chain of RT, which is composed of synchronies in mutual expectations
and obligations in the existing system of institutionalized community participation. As mentioned in
Section 5.5, the institutionalized mechanism of community participation has venues to meet, discuss,and make decisions in school management like the SMC or PTA general meetings and the SPAM. Whena headteacher or a SMC or PTA chairperson showed the leadership to improve school learning climate,122

or professional capacity or pedagogical aspects at a SMC or PTA general meeting, it is necessary forschool communities to agree with shared goals of school development/improvement.
Then, such expectations or agreements must be accompanied with obligations or conducts to makeexpectations come true by teachers’ commitment to headteacher’s leadership, or school communities’
participation (collecting PTA funds through parents’ contributions, providing labour works, sharing
information to obtain support from local education offices or local governments). When schoolcommunities provide their obligations for schools, they also have expectations for schools to performbetter or to address what schools can do. School communities want to know at another PTA or SMC
general meeting how their contributions have worked toward shared goals and why their shared goals
have achieved or not . The SPAM, where the BECE results are mainly shared and discussed, is also a
possible venue to make each of school-level stakeholders accountable to each other for how
expectations were met with obligations and vice-verse for the sake of improving pupils’ learning.
Utilizing the existing system of institutionalized community participation, a chain of RT should besustained through keeping the synchronies in mutual expectations and obligations.

6.3.4 The need to support pupils as the subject of learning through realizing RT at bothcollective and individual level
As suggested in Section 6.2.4, it is necessary to support pupils as the subject of learning, in bothcollective and individual participation. In collective participation, pupils’ participation in the SPAM
seems to be effective. As shown by the qualitative case studies presented in this dissertation, thepossible topics that pupils discuss in the SPAM may include 'School learning climate (need to renovate
classrooms)', 'Professional capacity (need to fill in vacant teachers)', 'Community, School, Parent Ties'(need to revive school excursions with support from parents and community) and 'Pedagogical factors'(need to have extra classes for BECE). According to the monthly reports issued by the JICA-supported
project in Burkina Faso, pupils and parents shared their commitment to achieving better learning
outcomes at meetings like SPAM. This implies that pupils, as the subject of learning, need to becommitted to learning, with support from teachers and guardians. It is possible for pupils to be
motivated for learning when they are in improved learning environments, which can be provided
through the collective participation of the school communities.
Studies have highlighted that parents have a deliberate choice as to whether they prefer collective
participation to individual participation due to their weak academic background. Therefore, the way ofaddressing individual participation should be carefully considered. First, the way of individual
participation among guardians, teachers, and pupils should be revisited in a way that parents feel123

comfortable with, without fears and concerns. For example, it seems to be difficult for guardians
without educational backgrounds to understand aggregated figures such as enrolment/drop
out/completion rates, pass rates or correct answer rates at the school level. ‘Teaching at the Right Level’,a method used by an Indian NGO, Pratham, seems to be useful for making such data easy to understandfor guardians. This makes children acquire foundational skills (arithmetic/reading) and utilize a simple
literacy assessment tool. It classifies pupils to the following five levels: Beginner, Letter, Word,
Paragraph and Story (Pratham 2020). This enables guardians to understand at which level their children
are located, in terms of their learning progress.
Homework is an effective tool for facilitating communication between school and homes.
According to its project monthly reports, the JICA-supported community participation project in
Burkina Faso made trials in which parents checked the completion of their children’s homework,without checking its pedagogical contents. This seemed to help children with doing homework as
learning habits, helped parents without academic backgrounds to supervise homework, and helped toprovide opportunities for parents and children to talk about school life and academic performance.
Moreover, as Carolan-Silva (2011) suggested, it is also important that in-school learning must be
integrated with out-of-school experiences, which parents understand in their daily lives. According to
the monthly reports issued by the JICA-supported project in Niger, parents or community members whoare skilled in making hand-woven straw baskets were invited to school to demonstrate their skills infront of children. This will lower barriers between teachers, who fear that parents mostly make claims
for school, and parents who are afraid that they cannot contribute to schools from a pedagogical aspect.

6.3.5 The need to support fragile individuals and school communities to sustain RT
In relation to Section 6.2.5, this dissertation could inform local educational administrations as towhat they should monitor and support, with the aim of mitigating educational disparities. In Ghana andmany other countries, the EMIS questionnaire is administered every year. In Ghana, there are only thefollowing four questions in terms of community participation in school management: whether there are
SMCs elected by elections, how frequently SMC meetings are organized, whether the SPIP isformulated, and whether schools received the capitation grant in the previous year. What thisdissertation revealed is that ‘Amount of mobilized PTA funds' and 'Amount of mobilized PTA funds perenrolment' have positive and statistically significant correlations with the BECE mean aggregate.
Therefore, if district education offices can monitor such indicators, they may be able to identify
vulnerable schools that need more support.
It is also critical for local government or local educational administration staff to identify whether
124geographical communities have troubles, such as community divides. Circuit supervisors, who areassigned to each circuit, seem to be effective in collecting such data, because they attend SMC/PTA
executive and/or general meetings. This information should be gathered to identify necessary measures
to avoid worsening community divides. In a politically divisive situation like School D, politicalinterventions may be necessary as ways of solutions. As the District Director of Education, Akatsi Southmentioned, the District Education Oversight Committee (DEOC), to which the District Chief Executive
belong, may function to address the community divide because this is something beyond educational
issues.
It is also significant to pay attention to fragile households within school communities. As explainedin this dissertation, guardians in Ghana are socially and economically fragile, and are not homogeneousin terms of the biological relationship with children. Their commitment to and involvement withschooling seemed to be diverse owing to this circumstance. Thus, it is critical for these fragile
households to participate in collective spaces, such as SMC or PTA general meetings, because they candepend on collective agencies to supplement their weak engagement through individual participation.
As shown in these case studies, divisions in geographical communities can severely affect schoolcommunities as spaces for collective participation. This can critically impact fragile households, who do
not have a strong sense of individual participation in schooling at home and need to resort to collective
participation via school communities.

6.4 Limitations
In this dissertation, I collected RT data in each role relationship, from the perspective ofheadteachers. This was because I wanted to collect both the community participation data at schools andthe RT data from headteachers, to the extent possible.
However, there are several limitations in this dissertation. First, because I collected only
school-level data, it was not possible to collect data at pupils’ level, which would have allowed me to
conduct more elaborate analysis, such as multi-level hierarchical analysis. To conduct this analysis, itwould be necessary to collect individual student BECE mean aggregate data. While the BECE mean
aggregates of schools are available at the district education offices, the availability and the usage ofindividual BECE data is more difficult to obtain, because these data are not made public due to privacy
restrictions. Technically, there is a need to match such dependent variable data with independent
variable data at the individual level. This may require the tracing of pupils who have already graduatedfrom JHS after BECE and obtaining their information.
Second, the headteacher questionnaire had the ceiling effects in various question items. I assume125

that this was because only headteachers answered the questionnaire to represent each school, meaningthat there was little variance in their answers. Teachers’ or guardians’ questionnaires would be more
likely to have variance because they would have more respondents.
Third, ‘School communities-school RT’ items may need to be revisited, because there might beambiguity as to what school communities means. I aimed to include parents and community members asa whole within school communities, however, respondents may interpret them as comprising the
SMC/PTA executive members who always meet and discuss with headteachers. In such a case,perceptions of the SMC/PTA executive members may differ from those of the parents and community
members as a whole. School B had a relatively high extent of ‘School communities-school RT’, but had
low collective participation. This might have arisen owing to such perception gaps.
Fourth, relationships among school-level stakeholders are more complex, and need to be examined
more carefully. For instance, in Figure 35, I could not analyse the relationship between the schoolcommunities as a collective and parents as individuals. In addition, it is still unknown as to howteachers as a collective will affect individual teacher’s consciousness, attitude and behaviour.
Fifth, the data on factors in school management were limited. Such data should have been collected
thoroughly in order to investigate the relationships between factors in school management and RT.
Moreover, the sample size for the regression analysis was not adequate, which seemed to limit thequantitative study.
Moreover, more of the qualitative data should have been collected more chronologically. I analysed
the realization of RT as synchronies in mutual expectations and obligations within certain years, basedon available data. However, it may be too early to determine whether RT became solid. Observations
should be made regarding how RT builds on factors and among school-level stakeholders asaccumulated assets over time.
Lastly, this dissertation did not conduct in-depth analysis of cultural communities. As case study
schools are located in rural areas in the Akatsi South District, the population was dominated by one
ethnic group, Ewe, thus, I did not pay much attentions to that aspect. However, if it comes to urban
areas like the district capital, Akatsi or bigger towns and cities in Ghana, people from different ethnic
groups are mixed up and coexist. Thus, consideration into ethnic identity needs to be reflected in the
future research design if the study must deal with diverse cultural communities.

6.5 Suggestions for further study
Several suggestions can be raised for further study. First, there is a need to conduct a continuous
qualitative study to trace whether RT is realized over time. It may take some time for expectations from126

one side to be accompanied by obligations or support from the same side, or met with obligations by theother side, so as to realize RT. Careful examination is also needed regarding how RT is realized, and
how RT will be accumulated to induce collective participation and educational outcomes. Thus,
continuous qualitative study is necessary to trace the process among RT, collective participation, andeducational outcomes in detail.
Second, the relationships among community development, RT, and educational outcomes should
be explored further. It may affect community’ engagement with education regarding how community
has been traditionally consensual, in terms of community development and the value of education.
Declining educational outcomes may be one of the symbolic phenomena to be addressed, however,
without solving root causes for community divides, the instrumental approach of community
participation will not work.
Third, more data should be collected as to how pupils’ consciousness, attitude and behaviours areaffected as the result of community participation at the collective level, as well as parents’ participationand their interactions with teachers at the individual level. This is an area where little research has been
conducted, and it needs to be further explored. Finally, further examination is needed as to whether theconceptual framework of this dissertation will be relevant in different contexts within Ghana, and indifferent regions, private schools, and public schools in urban areas, as well as in other countries.
Lastly, consideration into politics within geographical and school communities needs to have more
attentions in the study of community participation in school management. Any interventions inschooling and community development in general, are defined and viewed from the politicalperspectives of stakeholders, who are concerned about ethnicity, political power balance, anddecision-making over resource mobilization and/or allocation.

6.6 Concluding noteThis dissertation aimed to analyse the relationships between actors and factors in school
management, from the viewpoint of RT, based on literature. Community participation in school
management, institutionalized in Western society, has relied on Putnam (1995)’s social capital theory at
the collective level that independent households participate in civil society autonomously, share equal
responsibilities, and formulate collectives of institutionalized community. However, this dissertation
contributed to illuminating RT as a new form of social capital, which enabled individual households
under resource scarcity and with diverse background to formulate collectives of community with theprinciple of inter-dependency in a flexible manner to the extent possible. Through participation incollectives of school communities, it was possible that RT, which comprised of the synchronies in127mutual expectations and obligations, has been realized and individual households multiplied their scarce
resources as the result of collective actions. Furthermore, the perspective of RT, which this dissertation
presented, can show important implications for community participation in school management
mechanism in industrialized countries that have suffered from system fatigue under diversified society
and working modality, and associated widened disparities among households in terms of involvementwith school affairs.

128

Annex
1. Conceptual framework: Factors that determine school effectiveness
2. Framework of essential support for improvement
3. Accountability framework (modified by I based on the World Development Report 2004)
4. Correspondence between the modality and the rationale of participation, modality of community, andorganizational unit
5. Headteacher questionnaire
6. Headteacher additional questionnaire
7. Interviews conducted during the field surveys (February and September 2017, September 2018)
8. Detailed information about interviewees
9. Research permission letter (Ghana Education Service) and agreement (Ghana Statistics Service)
10. Record of SMC or PTA executive or general meeting minutes
11. Screenshots from primary documents coded in MAXQDA18
12. Descriptive statistics and correlation table (educational outcomes, community participation,socio-economic status, and RT)

129

130

131

132

Annex 4. Correspondence between the modality and the rationale of participation, modality of community, and organizational unit
Modality ofRationale of participation

Modality ofparticipation

Organizational unit

community

Collective

Participatory

participation

democracy

Representative(Putnamdemocracy(Edwards & Klees 2015)

1995)

Legitimacy, democracy, effectiveness (Samoff 1990; Institutionalized

Schoolgoverning

Welsh & McGinn 1999); instrumental approachschoolbody(executive(Edwards

communities

meeting)anddecision-makers
Indirectparticipation(Suzuki 2002); Social

Consensual

democracy

(Ajei

2001)

Klees

parents

as(Martiniello 2000)

Collaboration andeducation2015);

mutual(volunteering,support(Yamada 2014)
forpupils’collaboration

withassociation/PTA(general meeting)relationshipatcommunity) (Epstein et al. 2002); parents asinstitutional

level

providers of support for the school (Martiniello 2000)(Epstein et al. 2002)

ParentCollaboration and mutual support for community

Indigenous

Town/village/commdevelopment (Ajei 2001)

geographicalunity assembly

communities(Yamada 2014)
Individual

Directparticipation

participation(Suzuki 2002); Social

learning at home (Epstein 2002;

relationshipat

Carolan-Silva

individual

level(Epstein et al. 2002)

Parenting,communicating,

2011;

Parents as responsible for child rearing, parents as

Household/co-teachers (Martiniello 2000)

Home

Suzuki

2002)
School choice (Suzuki 2002)

Efficiency and effectiveness (Samoff 1990)

133

Annex 5: Headteacher questionnaire

Head teachers’ questionnaireThis questionnaire is to understand the status quo of head teachers, teachers at your schools, and thefollowing relationships: between school communities and school; between you and teachers; among
teachers; between teachers and parents. This should be completed by the school head or in his/herabsence by his/her representative. The information gathered through the questionnaire is strictly used
for this research only. Individual information will not be revealed in public.

Answer the name of your school:

１．About yourself and your school
SELF1 1-1. What is your sex?

□Male

SELF2 1-2. How old are you?

□Femaleyears old

SELF3 1-3.What is the highest level of academic qualification you have attained?
□Junior secondary education or equivalent□Senior secondary education or equivalent□Certificate A□Diploma□Bachelor□Master□Non-teaching certificate/degree
1-4. Describe your teacher career history and fill in the table (Refer to an example)
From

Until

Name of school134

Refer to the example below.
(Example)
From

Until

2002

Name of school
Graduated from St.Fancis COE

2002

2005

Appointed as teacher and deployed to Zuta Basic schools

2005

2008

Transferred to Akatsi Demonstration primary school

2008

2010

Study leave at University of Cape Coast (Bachelor)

2010

Now

Transferred to Akatsi No.1 JHS

2015

Now

Promoted to head teacher at Akatsi No.1 JHS

SELF7 1-5. Have you had any orientation or training since you were appointed as a head teacher?
□Yes
SELF8 If yes, when was the recent training that you participated?:)□No

1-6. Fill in enrolment data at your school over the past three years in the following table.
FY2014/2015

FY2015/2016

KG: MaleKG: Female
Prim: Male
Prim: Female

135

FY2016/2017

JHS: Male
JHS: Female
Total
2. Teachers at your school
2-1. How many teachers do you have at this school?
TKGM KG:

Male

teachers

TKGF Female

teachers

TKGT

TPMM Prim: Male

teachers

TPMF Female

teachers

TPMT

TJHSM JHS: Male

teachers

TJHSF Female

teachers TJHSTTTOTAL Total:

2-2. How many teachers at your school are paid by the followings?
TGES 1. GES:

teachers

TDA 2. District Assembly:

teachers

TCP 3. Community and/or parents:

teachers

TG 4. Government (Youth Employment Program and national service):
TO 5. Others:

teachers

teachers

2-3. How many teachers fall into the following in terms of years working as teaching professionals?
TY04 1. 0-4 years:

teachers

TY59 2. 5-9 years:

teachers

TY1014 3.10-14 years:

teachers TY1519 4.15-19 years:

teachers

TY2024 5. 20-24 years:

teachers TY2529 6. 25-29 years:

teachers

TY3034 7. 30-34 years:

teachers TY35 8. More than 35 years:

teachers

2-4.How many teachers fall into the following as years working for your school?
TE02 1. 0-2 years:

teachers

TE35 2. 3-5 years:

teachers

TE68 3.6-8 years:

teachers

TE810 4.8-10 years:

teachers

TE10 5. More than 10 years:

teachers

2-5.How many teachers of your school fall into the following age group?
TA 21 1. below 21:

teachers

TA 2125

2. 21-25 years:

136

teachers

TA 2630 3.26-30 years:

teachers TA 3135 4.31-35 years:

teachers

TA 3640 5. 36-40 years:

teachers TA 4145 6. 41-45 years:

teachers

TA 4650 7. 46-50 years:

teachers TA 5155 8. 51-55 years:

teachers

TA 5660 9. 56-60 years:

teachers TA MORE35 10. More than 35 years:

teachers

2-6.How many teachers have attained the following as highest level of academic qualification?
TQ1 1. Junior secondary education or equivalent:teachers

TQ2 2. Senior secondary education or equivalent:teachers

TQ3 3. Certificate A:

teachers

TQ4 4. Diploma:

teachers

TQ5 5. Bachelor:teachers

TQ6 6. Master:teachers

TQ7 7. Non-teaching certificate/degree:

teachers

2-7. How many teachers fall into the following regarding their way of commuting to the school?
TC1 1. Commute from community surrounding the school:
TC2 2. Commute from nearby villages:
TC3 3. Commute from nearby towns:

teachers

teachers
teachers

TC4 4. Commute from long distance beyond nearby towns:

teachers

3. Collective participation by school communities (community members and parents)
Answer the following questions.
CP1 3-1. Does your school develop SPIP?
□Every year without delay□Every year but with delay□Not every year□Not at all

CP2 3-2. How does your school discuss the content of SPIP before submitting it to the District
Education office? (you may tick as many as possible)□ Discuss within school staff
executive members□ Discuss with SMC chairperson □ Discuss with SMC or PTA□Discuss with parents and community members at SMC or

137

PTA general meetings

CP3 3-3. When is the capitation grant normally disbursed to school account in the first term?
□ Just when SPIP activities start□ nearly half of way in the implementation of SPIP activities □when SPIP activities is going to end□after SPIP activities end or later138

3-4. Fill in the following table by describing information about the extent of community participation(frequency of SMC or PTA meeting, number of participants, amount of mobilized PTA funds) over three
years referring to the past SMC or PTA minutes.

FY2014/2015
CP4SMCEFY2015/2016

FY2016/2017

Frequency of SMC

executive meetings
CP4PTAE

Frequency

ofPTA

executive meetings
CP4SMCG Frequency of SMC
general meetings
CP4PTAG

FrequencyofPTA

general meetings
CP4SMCP Number of participants
at each SMC general meetings
CP4PTAP Number of participants ateach PTA general meetings
CP4PTALP Number of parents who
paid PTA funds against that ofparents who are supposed to pay(CP4PTALSP)CP4PTAL Amount of capitation
grant delivered to school account in
total per year
CP4CG Amount of mobilized PTA
funds per year
CP4SPAM Frequency of SPAM per
year
Note: If SMC and PTA organize their meetings jointly, put in one column and indicate its frequency andnumber of participants as joint meetings.

139

(Example)

FrequencyofSMC

executive meetings

Frequencyofof

FY2016/2017

1st term: none

1st term: none

1st term: none

2nd term: once

2nd term: twice

2nd term: once

3rd term: once

3rd term: once

3rd term: twice

Done jointly with

Done jointly with

SMC

SMC

jointly

SMC

SMC

general meetings

Frequency

FY2015/2016

PTA Done

executive meetings

Frequency

FY2014/2015

withexecutive

executive

executive

meetings

meetings

meetings

1st term: once

1st term: once

1st term: twice

2nd term: once

2nd term: twice

2nd term: once

3rd term: once

3rd term: once

3rd term: once

Done jointly with

Done jointly with

SMC

SMC

of

PTA Done

general meetings

SMC

jointlywithgeneralgeneralgeneralmeetings

meetings

meetings

Number of participants

1st term: 100

1st term: 80

1st term: 100

at each SMC general

2nd term: 120

2nd term: 100

2nd term: 120

meetings

3rd term: 150

3rd term: 120

3rd term: 150

Number of participants

Done

Done jointly with

Done jointly withat each PTA general

SMC

SMC

SMC

meetings

meetings

jointlywithgeneralgeneralmeetings

generalmeetings

Number of parents who Those who paid:30

Those

paid PTA funds againstarepaid:40that of parents who are supposed to pay: 60

Those

supposed to pay

supposed to pay:

supposed to pay:

60

60

GHC2,000

GHC2,000

GHC2,000

GHC2,500

GHC2,000

GHC1,500

1st term: none

1st term: none

Amount of capitation
grantdelivered

Those

who

who

Those

who

paid:50
who

are

Those

who

to

school account in total
per yearAmount of mobilized
PTA funds per year
Frequency of SPAM 1st term: none

140

are

per year

2nd term: twice

2nd term: twice

2nd term: twice

3rd term: once

3rd term: once

3rd term: once

4. Relationship between school communities and school (head teacher and teachers)
Note: school communities are defined here as a group of local stakeholders who are parents/guardiansand community members participating in and involving in SMC or PTA activities.

Tick most appropriate answers or describe your opinions in the following questions.

SC1 4-1. As a head teacher, how do you want this school and your students to be? In other words, what
is your vision for the development of the school and students? Describe in the following space.

SC2 4-2. I communicate with /appeal to the school communities on the above-mentioned vision andnecessary support at SMC or PTA general meetings□Always □Often □Sometimes □Not at all

SC3 4-3. What kind of resource channels does your school have in terms of support for school
development over the past three years? (you may tick as many as possible)□1. Capitation grant□2. Educational supplies by GES district office□3. District Assembly support for school infrastructure□4. PTA funds□5. Communal labor by parents and/or community members□6. Support from chief/elders (such as provision of land)□7. Support from graduated students including those who are living in cities or abroad□8. NGO support141

□9.Donation from individuals, philanthropists, companies, public or private organizations/associations□10.Internally generated funds□11.Others (Specify:)

SC4 4-4. Which resource channels from the above are most reliable for your school? Indicate thenumber below. If you have multiple answers, indicate them in their priority order (that are more reliable
comes far left and the second comes on its right)

SC5 4-5.School communities provide necessary support for students’ development and learning at theschool□Strongly agree □Agree□Disagree□Strongly disagree

SC6 4-6.What kind of support (material and labor) were available to the school from schoolcommunities over the past three years? Describe in the following space.

SC7 4-7.School communities provide necessary support for teachers□Strongly agree □Agree□Disagree□Strongly disagree

SC8 4-8.What kind of support (financial, material, and labor) were available to teachers from schoolcommunities over the past three years? Describe in the following space.

1424-9.School communities consult with the school when they have concerns about students and theireducation□Strongly agree □Agree□Disagree□Strongly disagree

4-10.School communities pay serious attention to whatever the school informs them of what happened
to as well as what will be necessary for the school and students□Strongly agree □Agree□Disagree□Strongly disagree

4-11.School communities participate in SMC or PTA general meetings actively□Strongly agree □Agree□Disagree□Strongly disagree

4-12.School communities understand concerns by the school about students’ development and theirlearning□Strongly agree □Agree□Disagree□Strongly disagree

4-13.Talking with school communities help the school (head teacher and teachers) to understand thembetter□Strongly agree □Agree□Disagree□Strongly disagree

4-14.Teachers including myself feel attached to the community surrounding the school□Strongly agree □Agree□Disagree□Strongly disagree

4-15.Teachers including myself think that they have to work hard for students at this school□Strongly agree □Agree□Disagree□Strongly disagree

4-16.Teachers including myself think that they have to listen to what school communities say□Strongly agree □Agree□Disagree□Strongly disagree

4-17.Teachers including myself consult with school communities when teachers have concerns overstudents’ development and their learning□Strongly agree □Agree□Disagree□Strongly disagree1434-18.Teachers including myself think that they have to improve students’ academic performance at thisschool□Strongly agree □Agree□Disagree□Strongly disagree

144

Annex 6: Headteacher additional questionnaire

Date of filling in the sheet:
Name of school:
Name of person and title who filled in the sheet:

Please pick(✔) from the list below the five (5) major community that feed students to your school.
-The information of the listed community are from the Population and Housing Census 2010.
-If you identify relevant community as feeding one but the name is slightly different from listed one,please select those that are almost identical in terms of the community name.
-If they are not listed, please select the closest in terms of geographical locations.
-If feeding community are less than five, it is Ok for you to tick less than five.
-For example, if you identify ADEHETA is one of major feeding community to your school, tick likebelow.
✔ ADEHETA
Name of Community
ADEHETA

AVASHIVEADETSEWUI (AGBAKOPE)AVEDOADRAKPO-AGBONYEMITSIKOPEAVENORPEDOADZIKAME

AVENORPEME

AFATSAGBELEVE

AWANYAKOPEAGBAFLOMEAYITIKOPE

AGBAGBLAKOPE

BAYIVEAGBANUKOPEDAGBAMATE

AGBEDRAFORDAWLOAGORDOEDZOGADZEAGORNU-KPORKPLOTEDZRAKATEAGORWEME DUGADZUEPE/ATSIAME

AGORWEME-HOMADZIKOPE

FIATO/LEKETE/NYIDIKUKOPE

AGOVEFIATO-GAMORKOPE

AHLIHADZIGEFIAAKATSIGELIKOPE
145

AKEVE DAVORKOPEGOKUKOPEAKUAVEGORNIKOPE

ALOKPAGUIGAALORSEKOPE

GYAVE

AMEVUVORKOPEHAVEAPEYIMEHAVEDZIATIDZIVE

HETORLOGO

ATSIEKPUIHODZIKOPE

AVADREHORTIKLOKPENKPOKOPE

KPEDATORKOPENOGOKPOKPEGLOKOPE (ABLORKPO)NYITAWUTAKPELIKOPENYOGBORTE-ANYIHEMEKPODZIVINYORGBOR ANYIDZIMEKPOHESAKPAKUKOPEKPOTA-KPOHESESIMEKUTSIME ESUSUKOPESREMANUKWEGBAGASUIPEGAKWEGBAGLIKPOMETETEMALELAWUI-APEYIAMETOGODOLAWUI-AVEDZITORGBOKOPE

LIGIKOPETORVELIVEGATOVILOGAKOPETSIEVELOGOTETSIGBENE

LOKOKOPETUMAWUKOPE

LUME-AHUGAKOPEWLITEY

LUME-AVETE

WUTE

MAMEDOWUXORMONOME-ATIATEXAVIMORYIGAYALUVI-DZOTSIKOPE

NGBLEBIZUTAGA
146

Annex 7. Interviews conducted during the field surveys (February and September 2017, September
2018)

147

Annex 8. Detailed information about interviewees (As of September 2017)
Interviewees

No

Basic characteristics

1

Sex: Male, Age: 48, Educational qualification: Bachelor, Working

School A
Headteacher

years as teachers: 19 years (since 1998), Posted as headteacher:since 2017
Teachers5

Sex (Male 3; Female 2), Age (20s 4; 30s 1), Education level (KG 2;
Prim 4), Educational qualification (Bachelor 1; Diploma 3; SHS 1)

Community

12

members/guardians

Sex (Male 7; Female 5), Age (30s 2; 40s 7; 50s 2; 60s 1),
Occupation (Farmer 11; Trader 1), Education background (SHS 2;
JHS 2, Prim 3; No school 5), Position (PTA vice chair 1; PTA
treasurer 1; SMC (executive) member 1; PTA (executive) member
3; Parent 5)

Pupils4

Primary grade 6

1

Sex: Female, Age: 45, Educational qualification: Bachelor, Working

School B
Headteacher

years as teachers: 20 years (since 1997), Posted as headteacher:since 2012
Teachers

NA

NA

Community

1

SMC chairperson (Details not available)

NANA

members/guardians
Pupils148

School C
Headteacher

1

Sex: Male, Age: 53, Educational qualification: Certificate A,
Working years as teachers: 31 years (since 1986), Posted as
headteacher: since 2013

Teachers8

Sex (Male 5; Female 3), Age (20s 3; 30s 4; 40s 1), Educationlevel (Prim 5; JHS 3), Educational qualification (Bachelor 1;
Diploma 7)

Community

9

members/guardians

Sex (Male 5; Female 3), Age (30s 1; 40s 4; 50s 2; 60s 1; 70s 1),
Occupation (Farmer 7; Trader 1; Electric Company of Ghana 1),
Education background (National Vocational Technical Institute 1;
SHS 1; MSLC (JHS) 5; A level 1; No school 1), Position ( SMC
chairperson 1; SMC (executive) member 1; Town Development
chairperson 1; Unit committee member 1; PTA chairperson 1;
Parent 3)

Pupils5

JHS form 1

1

Sex: Male, Age: 43. Educational qualification: Bachelor, Working

School D
Headteacher

years as teacher: 18 years, Posted as heateacher: since 2014
Teachers2

One male at JHS (age 46, English language teacher, educational
qualification Certificate A post secondary). One female atprimary (age 23, Primary 5 teacher, educational qualification:
Diploma in Basic education)

Parents/Guardians3

Two parents (one male, age 70 and one female, age 49). Both arefarmers and their educational qualifications are MSCE (currently
JHS level). The other is 26 years old and a currently SHS student
who have younger brother/sister at primary.

Pupils

NA

NA

149

Annex 9. Research Permission Letters from GES and the agreement with GSS

150

151

152

153

Annex 10. Records of SMC or PTA executive or general meeting minutes

154Annex 11: Screenshots from primary documents coded in MAXQDA18
The first figure, upper left: a list of documentary data including SMC/PTA general and/or executive
meeting minutes and interview transcripts, upper right: document browser of activated documents,lower
right: coding system (a list of codes), upper right: retrieved scripts by coding system. The second figure
shows how each document is coded by coding system)

155

156

Reference
Adam, F. 2005. Community Participation in School Development: Understanding participation in Basic
Schools Performance in the Nanumba District of Ghana. Unpublished Master dissertation. University of
Sussex.
Adu, S. 2016. The Role of Headteacher Leadership and Community Participation in Public School
Improvement in Ghana. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Sussex.
Ajei, O. M. 2001. Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Good Governance in Ghana: The Traditional
Akan Socio-Political Example. Occasional dissertations No.30. Institute of Economic Affairs. Accra,
Ghana.
Akyeampong, K. 2004.Whole School Development in Ghana. Background dissertation prepared for the
Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2005 The Quality Imperative.
Akyeampong, K. & Stephens, D. 2002. Exploring the Backgrounds and Shaping of Beginning Student
Teachers in Ghana: Toward Greater Contextualisation of Teacher Education. International Journal of
Educational Development. 22, pp.261-274.
Ampadu, E., Butakor, P. K., & Cole, Y. 2017. Working Together to Improve the Quality of Mathematics
Education and Students Achievements: Exploring the Views of Ghanaian
Parents. African Research Review 11(1), pp.11-27.
Andrews, R.G. 2017. A Case Study of Parental Involvement in Basic Education in Rural Ghana.
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Sussex.
Alhassan, A.B. 2013. School Corporal Punishment in Ghana and Nigeria as a Method of Discipline: A
Psychological Examination of Policy and Practice. Journal of Education and Practice. 4(27),pp.137-147.
https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/9890 (Retrieved on December 3. 2018)
Araki, M. 2016. Intrinsic Development Practice and Creation of Commons: Attentions to conflicts andcollaboration over water resource management in Tanzania, In Takahashi, M & Oyama, S. (Eds.)
Between Development and Coexistence: Living in the Transformation of the Nations and the Market.
Kyoto University Publisher, pp.91-121.
Barrera-Osorio, F., Tazeen F., Patrinos, H.A., Santibáñez, L., 2009. Decentralized Decision-Making in
Schools: The Theory and Evidence on School Cased Management. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Bamattre, R. 2018. Between State and Society: Community Schools in Zambia. In Clothey, R. &Heidemann, K., (Eds.), Another way: Decentralization, Democratization, and the Global Politics ofCommunity-Based Schooling, pp.97-113. Leiden: Brill Sense.
Bossert, S. 1988. School Effects. In Boyan, N.(Eds.). The Handbook of Research on Educational157

Administration，pp. 341−354，White Planes. NY: Longman.
Bray, M. 2000.Community Participation in Education: Dimensions, Variations, and Implications. Hong
Kong, China: The University of Hong Kong, Comparative Education Center.
Bruns, B., Deon, F., & Harry, A.P. 2011. Making Schools Work: New Evidence on Accountability
Reforms. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Bryk, A.S., & Schneider, B. 2002. Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. Russell Sage
Foundation, New York.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J.Q. 2010. Organizing Schools for
Improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Caldwell, B.J. 2005. School-Based Management. Paris: UNESCO.
Carney, S., Bista, M, & Agergaard, J. 2007. Empowering the Local through Education? Exploring
Community-managed Schooling in Nepal. Oxford Review of Education 33(5), pp.611-628.
Carolan-Silva, A. 2011. Negotiating the Roles of Community Members and Parents: Participation in
Education in Rural Paraguay. Comparative Education Review 55(2), pp.252-270.
Chapman, C. & Sammons, P. 2013. School Self-Evaluation for School Improvement: What Works andWhy? CfBT Education Trust.
Chapman, D., Barcikowski, E., Sowah, M., Gyamera, E. & Woode, G. 2002. Do community Know the
Best? Testing a Premise of Educational Decentralization: Community Members’ perceptions of Their
Local Schools in Ghana. International Journal of Educational Development 22, pp.181-189.
Sefa-Nyarko, C., Kyei, P., & Mwambari, D. 2018. Background paper: Transitions from Primary to
Lower Secondary School: A Focus on Equity. As Part of the Secondary Education in Africa: Preparing
Youth for the Future of Work series (SEA) of MasterCard Foundation. Participatory Development
Associate Ltd.
Coleman, J.S, Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D., & York, R.L.
1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity. U.S. Department of Health, Education, & Welfare, Office of
Education.
Coleman, J.S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology 94.
pp.95-120.
Creswell, J.W. 2014. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and Mixed methods approaches (4thed.). Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage
Cuellar-Marchelli, H. 2003. Decentralization and Privatization of Education in El Salvador: Assessing
the Experience. International Journal of Educational Development 23, pp.145-166.
Dabney, J. 2008. Show Me That You Care: The Presence of Relational Trust between a Principal and158

Teachers in an Urban School. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/osu1211325022/inline(Retrieved on December 4, 2017)
Darvas, P, & Balwanz, D. 2013. Basic Education Beyond the Millennium Development Goals in Ghana:
How Equity in Service Delivery Affects Educational and Learning Outcomes. World Bank Study.
Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0098-6
De Grauwe, A. 2005. Improving the Quality of Education through School Based Management: Learningfrom International Experiences. International Review of Education. 51(4) pp.269-287.
Donkor, A. 2010. Parental Involvement in Education in Ghana: The Case of a Private Elementary
School. International Journal about Parents in Education 4(1),pp.23-28.

Edwards Jr., D.B. 2019. Shifting the Perspective on Community-Based Management of Education:
From Systems Theory to Social Capital and Community Empowerment. International Journal of
Educational Development 64, pp.17-26.
Edwards Jr., D.B. & Klees, S.J. 2015.Unpacking 'participation' in development and educational
governance: A framework of perspectives and practices. Prospects 45, pp.483-499.
Edwards Jr., D.B., & Loucel, C. 2016. The EDUCO Program, Impact Evaluations, and the Political
Economy of Global Education Reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives 24 (92), pp.1-46.
Epstein, J.L., Sanders, M.G., Simon, B.S., Salinas, K.C., Jansorn, N.R., Van Voorhis, F.L. 2002. School,
Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action second ed. Corwin Press Inc., A Sage
Publications Company, Thousand Oaks, California.
Essuman A. 2013. Decentralization of Education Management in Ghana: Key Issues in
School-Community relations. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, Germany.
Essuman, A., & Akyeampong, K. 2011. Decentralisation Policy and Practice in Ghana: The Promise andReality of Community Participation in Education in Rural community. Journal of Education Policy
26(4), pp.513-527.
Fertig, M. 2000. Old Wine in New Bottles? Researching Effective Schools in Developing Countries.
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 11(3), pp.385-403.
Foster, P. 1965. Education and Social Change in Ghana. University of Chicago Press.
Gershberg, A.I., Gonzalez, P.A., & Meade, B. 2012. Understanding and Improving Accountability in
Education: A Conceptual Framework and Guideposts from Three Decentralization Reform Experiencesin Latin America. World Development 40 (5), pp.1024-1041.
Goddard, R.D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W.K. 2001. A Multilevel Examination of the Distribution
and Effects of Teacher Trust in Students and Parents in Urban Elementary Schools The Elementary159

School Journal, 102 (1), pp.3-17.
Ghana Education Service. 2010. Headteachers’ Handbook. Accra, Ghana.
Ghana Education Service. 2012. School Management Committee Resource Handbook. Accra, Ghana.
Ghana Statistical Service. 2013. 2010 Population & Housing Census. National Analytical Report.
http://www.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/2010phc/National_Analytical_Report.pdf(Retrievedon

November 22. 2018)
Ghana Statistical Service. 2014. Population & Housing Census. District Analytical Report Akatsi South
District. http://www.statsghana.gov.gh/docfiles/2010_District_Report/Volta/AKATSI%20SOUTH.pdf(Retrieved on November 22, 2018)
CITI Newsroom. 2019.
https://citinewsroom.com/2019/01/ban-on-caning-in-order-it-makes-students-timid-gnecc/(Retrieved on February 8, 2020)
Hallinger, P. & Heck, R.H. 2011. Exploring the Journey of School Improvement: Classifying andAnalyzing Patterns of Change in School Improvement Processes and Learning outcomes. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22 (1), pp.1—27.
DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2010.536322
Hamada, H. 2007. School Autonomy and Headteacher’s New Roles: Learning from School Management
Reforms in US. Ichigeisha.
Hedge, J. 2002. The Importance of Posting and Interaction with the Education Bureaucracy in
Becoming a Teacher in Ghana. International Journal of Educational Development 22, pp.353-366.
Heneveld, W. & Craig, H. 1996. School counts. World Bank project designs and the quality of primaryeducation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Hirose, K. 2011. Chapter 25: Traditional Chieftaincy. In Takane, T. & Yamada, S. (Eds.) 47 Chapters toKnow Ghana. Akashi Shoten.
Hopkins, D. 1996. Toward a Theory for School Improvement. In Gray, J (Ed.), Merging Traditions:
Future of Research on School Effectiveness and School Improvement. pp.30-50. Continuum
International Publishing Group Ltd.
Hoppers, W. 2005. Community Schools as an Educational Alternative in Africa: A Critique.
International Review of Education 51(2/3), pp.115-137.
Holmes, J.G. & Rempel, J.K. 1989. Trust in Close Relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close
Relationships, pp.187-220. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hoy & Tschnnen-Moran. 1999. Five Faces of Trust: An Empirical Confirmation in Urban Elementary
Schools. Journal of School Leadership 9, pp.184-208.
160

Jonson, R.B. & Onwuegbuzui, A. T. 2004. Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose
Time Has Come. Educational Researcher,33 (7) , pp. 14-26.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. 2004. Review of Research: How Leadership
Influences Student Learning. Learning from Leadership Project. Wallace Foundation: New York.
Komatsu, T. 2014. Does Decentralization Enhance a School’s Role of Promoting Social Cohesion?
Bosnian School Leaders’ Perceptions of School Governance. International Review of Education 60,
pp.7-31.
Lockheed, M.E. & Levin, H. M. 1993.Creating Effective Schools. In Levin, H. M., & Lockheed, M.E.
(Eds.) Effective Schools in Developing Countries. The Falmer Press.
Lockheed, M.E. & Verspoor, A. 1991. Improving Primary Education in Developing Countries.
Washington, DC:World Bank.
Malakolunthu, S., McBeath, J., Swaffield S., 2014. Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning
through Leadership for Learning: Changing Scenarios in Basic Schools of Ghana. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 42(5), pp.701-717.
Martiniello, M. 2000. Participacion de los Padres en la Educacion: Hacia una Taxonomia para America
Latina. In Perspectivas Sobre la Reforma Educativa: America Central en el Contexto de Politicas deEducacion en Las America.J.C.Navarro et al. (Eds.) Washington DC: United States Agency forInternational Development.
McWilliam, H.O.A. 1975. The Development of Education in Ghana. Longmans.
Mfum-Mensah, O. & Friedson-Ridenour, S. 2014. Whose Voices are Being Heard? Mechanism forCommunity Participation in Education in Northern Ghana. Prospects 44, pp.351-365.
Ministry of Education, Ghana, Education Management Information System.
http://www.ghanaeducationdata.com/ (Retrieved on November 22, 2018)
Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D., and Ecob, R. 1988. School Matters. University ofCalifornia Press.
Murphy, J. 1991. Restructuring Schools: Capturing and Assessing the Phenomena, New York: Teachers
College Press.
Nishimura, M. 2017. Community Participation in School Management in Developing Countries. Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of Education. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.64
Nishimura, M. 2018. Community Participation in School Governance: The Massai Community in
Kenya. Prospects https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-018-9439-8
Nyamnjoh, F. B.

2016. Incompleteness: Frontier Africa and the Currency of Conviviality (Kusunoki,

K & Matsuda, M). In Matsuda, M & Hirano, N, M (Eds.). Cultural Creativity for Conflict Resolution161

and Coexistence: African Potentials as Practice of Incompleteness and Bricolage. Kyoto: Kyoto
University Press. pp.311-347.
Ogawa, M., 2017. Various conflicts emerging in the process of quality improvement in secondary
schools in Western Kenya: Decisions by schools and students. Comparative Education 54, pp.88-109.
Okitsu, T & Edwards Jr, B. D. 2017.Policy Promise and the Reality of community involvement inschool-based management in Zambia: Can the rural poor hold schools and teachers to account?
International Journal of Educational Development 56, pp.28-41.
Oplatka, I. 2004. The Principalship in Developing Countries: Context, Characteristics and Reality.
Comparative Education 40 (3), pp. 427-448.
Pellini, A. 2005. Decentralization of Education in Cambodia: Searching for Spaces of Participation
between Traditions and Modernity. Compare 35 (2), pp. 205-216.
Putnam, R.D. 1995. Bowing Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
Pryor, J. 2005. Can Community Participation Mobilize Social Capital for Improvement of Rural
Schooling? A Case Study from Ghana. Compare 35(2), pp.193-203.
Reynolds, D. & Reid, K. 1985. The Second Stage: Towards a Reconceptualization of Theory andMethodology in School Effectiveness Research. In Reynolds, D (Ed.) Studying School Effectiveness.
Falmer Press.
Rose, P. 2003. Community Participation in School Policy and Practice in Malawi: Balancing local
knowledge, national policies and international agency priorities. Compare 33(1), pp.47-64.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920302597
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Onston, J., with Smith,. A. 1979. Fifteen Thousand Hours:
Secondary schools and their effects on children.
Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. 1995. Key characteristics of effective schools: a review ofschool effectiveness research. London: OFSTED.
Sanders, M. G. 2002. Community Involvement in School Improvement: The Little Extra That Makes a
Big Difference. In Epstein, J.L., Sanders, M.G., Simon, B.S., Salinas, K.C., Jansorn, N.R., Van Voorhis,
F.L. (Eds.). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action (second ed).
Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press Inc., A Sage Publications Company.
Saito, K. 2013. Community Participation in School Management in Senegal: Differences between
Behavior and Perception. Comparative Education 46, pp.80-101.
Sato, I. 2008. Qualitative data analysis method: Principles, methods and practices. Shinyosha.
Schreens, J. 1990. School Effectiveness Research and the Development of Process Indicators of School
Functioning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 12, pp.61-80.
162

Selle, P. & Kristin, S. 1999. Organizational Membership and Democracy: Do We Need to Consider
Passive Members Seriously? (Ogawa, A). University of Chiba, Journal of Law and Politics. Vol.
14 .No.1. pp.143-166.
Sergiovanni, T. 1994. Building Community in Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Shibuya, K. 2017. Research Framework for Participatory School Management based on the Perspectiveof Participation and Relational Trust. Africa Educational Research Journal 8, pp.88-102.
Shibuya, K. 2019. Headteachers' Role in Participatory School Management from the Viewpoint ofRelational Trust: A Case Study from Ghana. Comparative Education 59, pp.46-68.
Shibuya, K. 2019. Reorganizing School Communities in Ghana: Focusing on the Analytical Frameworkof Conviviality. Journal of International Development Studies 28 (1), pp.71-84.
Shibuya, K. 2020.Community participation in school management from the viewpoint of Relational
Trust: A case from the Akatsi South District, Ghana. International Journal of Educational Development
76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102196
Shibuya, K. 2020.Community Participation in School Management, Relational Trust, and Teacher
Motivation toward Pupils’ Learning Outcomes: The Case Study from Ghana. In M. Nishimura (Ed.) ,Community participation with schools in developing countries: Towards equitable and inclusive basic
education for all. Routledge Research in Educational Equality and Diversity Series. New York & Oxon:
Routledge.
Shibuya, K. (forthcoming). Reorganizing School Communities in Ghana: Focusing on the Analytical
Framework of Conviviality. In Yamada, S., Takada, A., and Kessi, S.(Eds.). Volume 2: Education &Society: Knowledge, School, and Social Structure in Africa. African Potentials. LANGAA.
Shimizu, K., & Suzuki, I. 2012. Comparative Sociology of Learning Improvement Policies: What did
the National Learning Survey bring to prefectures? Akashi Publishers.
Shoraku, A. 2008. A Case Study of Parental Participation in Primary School Education in Kampong
Chhnang Province, Cambodia. Comparative Education 36, pp.3-24.
Stoll, L. 1996. Linking School Effectiveness and School Improvement: Issues and Possibilities. In Gray,
J (Ed.), Merging Traditions: Future of Research on School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
pp.30-50. Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd.
Suetomi, K. 2005. Public Schools as Club Goods and their Membership Issues: Position of Passive
Members in Decentralized Education Reforms. Japan Educational Administration Society Bulletin 31.
pp. 133-150.
Suzuki, I. 2002. Parental Participation and Accountability in Primary Schools in Uganda. Compare
32(2), pp.243-259.
163

Takeda, N., Demas, A., Shibuya, K. 2013. World Bank Portfolio Review of School Autonomy andAccountability:Operations and Analytical Work FY2003-2013, Washington DC: World Bank.
Taniguchi, K. & Hirakawa, Y. 2016. Dynamics of Community Participation, Student Achievement and
School Management: The Case of Primary Schools in a Rural Area of Malawi. Compare 46(3),pp.479-502.
Tsuyuguchi, K. 2003.Headteacher Leadership Seeking for Trust Building: Relationship between
Leadership, Trust, and School Improvement. Research Bulletin of Educational Administration 6,
pp.21-37.
Tsuyuguchi, K. 2009. The Relationship between the Organization Image which Parents have and the
School Trust: An Analysis which utilized individual and organizational level data. Bulletin of theFaculty of Education, Ehime University, 56, pp.27-36.
Tsuyuguchi, K. 2016. Social Capital and Education: Role of School in Creating Connections. Minerva
Publishing Company.
Tsuyuguchi, K. & Kuramoto, T. 2014. Parent Networks as Determinants of Relational Trust. Bulletin of
the Faculty of Education, Ehime University, 61, pp. 57-69.
Volta Online
https://voltaonlinegh.com/2018/06/01/article-commercial-use-of-motorbikes-in-ghana-a-convenience-m
ode-of-transport-or-death-trap/(Retrieved on November 22, 2018)

Welsh, T & McGinn, N.F. 1999. Decentralization of Education: Why, When, What and How?. Paris:
UNESCO/IIEP.
West African Examination Council https://ghana.waecdirect.org/ (Retrieved on 12 February 2019)
Wohlstetter, P., Smyer, R., Mohrman, S.A. 1994. New Boundaries for School-Based Management: The
High Involvement Model. dissertation presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, April 4-8, 1994, New Orleans, LA.
World Bank. 2003. World development report 2004. Washington, DC: World Bank and Oxford
University Press.
World Bank. 2013. Project Appraisal Document for ‘Quality Improvement and Equity of Basic
Education

Project’(Retrieved

on

Jan

25,

2020

from

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/160831468307457305/pdf/757520PAD0P133010Box37730
0B00OUO090.pdf)
Woolcock, M. 2001.The Place of Social Capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. In
Helliwall, J.F. (Ed.) The contribution of human and social capital to sustained growth and well-being:
International symposium report, Human Resourced Development Canada and OECD.
164

Yamada, S. 2011. History of Elite Education and Traditional Education In Takane, T. & Yamada, S.(Eds.)
47 Chapters to Know Ghana. Akashi Shoten.
Yamada, S. 2014. Determinants of ‘Community Participation’: The Tradition of Local Initiatives and theInstitutionalization of School Management Committees in Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Compare 44(2),pp.162-185.
Yntiso,G., Ohta, I., & Matsuda, M. 2017. Introduction: Achieving Peace and Coexistence throughAfrican Potentials. In Yntiso, G., Ohta, I., & Matsuda, M. (Eds.) African Virtues in the Pursuit ofConviviality: Exploring Local Solutions in Light of Global Prescriptions. LANGAA, Bwea, pp3-37.
Yu, G. 2007. Research Evidence of School Effectiveness in Sub-Saharan Africa. EdQUAL Working
Paper No.7. University of Bristol, UK.

165