Preamble
Experiences of life keep informing us of what people and institutions really are against what they are presumed to be. It is quite unfortunate that Africans, especially Nigerians, whose livelihood still depends heavily on the imitation of the misconduct of European colonialists, without considering the implications of such imitation, are the ones proclaiming civilization in Nigeria’s contemporary times. The Yoruba elite of the South West of Nigeria are particularly guilty of this cultural bastardization. They are the ones who believe that the ability to speak and write the colonial language called English is what constitutes civilization. With the foreign languages permanently on their tongues, they have bartered their African brains for European brains.
Unlike the Igbo people of Eastern Nigeria and the Hausa people of the North, the Yoruba elite have become a serious embarrassment to their cultural pedigree through the relegation of their linguistic heritage. To them, the legacy of their ancestral lineage is a primordial shame not worth to be called a modern heritage. Thus, in their homes as well as in their public and private discussions, the language of communication is invariably English. And whoever is incapable of speaking Queen’s English or writing Shakespearean prose is considered primitive and unfit to live in cities and towns.
It is, culturally, a laughable orientation attributable only to a tribe of black people who prefer to substitute their naturally endowed culture for that of the wild white people and thereby getting lost in the wilderness of cultural confusion. How can such people who are deeply engrossed in colonial mentality believe in the cultural emancipation of others? Today’s article is not meant for discussing the details of this fundamental aberration that chains a people to the apron of perpetual colonialism. Another day in the near future will do.
Reactions to Appeal Court Ruling in Lagos
Reactions of various colours and hues have been trailing on the ruling of the Appeal court in Lagos State in respect of a litigation over Hijab wearing in public schools by Muslim female pupils in that State. But every reaction seems to be an exhibition of antecedent and level of civility on the part of those who have been reacting to it. The ruling was not the first to be pronounced by a Nigerian court of competent jurisdiction concerning Hijab wearing in public schools. It was preceded by a High Court ruling in the same State some years ago and we can still vividly remember the reactions that trailed it.
When a Lagos High Court ruling that prompted an appeal by the litigants in Hijab case was pronounced in 2013, there were various reactions which have not lost on us. The affected Muslims, at that time, who got the wrong side of the judgment, did not bring fanaticism into it. They did not take the law into their hands by threatening fire and brimstone. Rather, they simply exhibited civility and adherence to the rule of law by appealing to a higher court. That is civilization in all its ramifications.
Precedent
The unnecessary controversy over the right of wearing Hijab in public schools by Muslim female pupils in those schools is not peculiar to Lagos State. A similar court pronouncement was made in an Osun State High Court not long ago and we know the reactions that trailed it. So we cannot be alarmed by any inflammatory reaction to the court ruling from any quarter since we are familiar with its trend as far as such quarters are concerned. The original aim of writing on this topic today is neither to celebrate any victory nor to vilify any recalcitrance. But to congratulate the Lagos State Muslims on their civilized behaviour throughout the period of the case and to further encourage them to stick to the upholding of the rule of law in all circumstances including one of unwarranted provocation.
Meanwhile, the outcome of that case has thrown open a fundamental question which had for long remained tacit. Who owns the public schools in Nigeria generally and in Lagos State in particular? This question becomes germane not because of last week’s ruling that was more about freedom of religion and dressing but because of the future of our children who may have cause to ask questions and may want to get the relevant and appropriate answers. The fundamental question of ‘who owns the schools’ deserves a fundamental answer that may become a reference point for our children in future. Luckily, yours sincerely needed not labouring much before answering that question. A foremost Nigerian educationist of Yoruba extraction (from Ilesa in Osun State) who incidentally happens to be a Christian has provided the right answer in his (unpublished) professorial book entitled ‘DEFINING THE FUTURE OF NIGERIAN EDUCATION’ which he wrote about November 2012. In chapter 2 of that book, Pa Fagbulu traced thoroughly the history of schools take-over in Nigeria. The chapter was titled ‘THE OWNERSHIP OF SCHOOLS IN NIGERIA’.
Excerpt rom the Book
An excerpt from the book may be of useful reference to any intellectually endowed Nigerian who may be in need of such a reference now or in future. It goes thus:
“Certain events in recent days make it imperative to clarify the issue of who owns schools in Nigeria. This search is complicated by the antecedents that define the history and development of Western education in the country. It is useful therefore to open the search with a brief digression into the history of that type of education with the view of gaining an understanding of the forces that shaped their development from their inception till today.
It is pedestrian to repeat that Western-type education was an import of European missionaries and that the environment in which they propagated their type of education was entirely their personal or collective business, that is until government started meddling in the missionaries’ affairs. That movement started in England where some mainly rich do-gooders felt greatly concerned about the appalling conditions in which children of the poor worked and lived. Coupled with that was the horrendous imagery of the inhuman trade in slaves that filtered to these Christian countries to disturb the serenity of their conscience and awaken the humane elements in them that drove some to seek redemption in Christian deeds that included stopping the slave trade and making legal provisions to assist missionary schools at home and abroad. It must be acknowledged that saving the souls of those poor children was a professed and serious reason of those do-gooders who were so damn serious about that fixation that derived from the fervor of their religion.
Historical Background
Education in England was not planned. Ordinances and education codes that were enacted as when needed were the main sources for policy formulation over a period of about 130 years from about 1820 to the time of Nigerian self-government. Some years after they were established and applied in England. These bills, codes and ordinances found their way to the colonies where the colonial governments were obliged to adopt and apply them.
Concerned and interested missionary and other groups took the initiative to establish schools and government’s concern was that the purpose for which they were established should be fulfilled. This development implied that sufficient assistance needed to be given to the schools to ensure that they survive to fulfill their dual role of harboring those freed from slavery along the West Coast and providing skills that would serve more the needs of the missionaries than the provision of life skills for those who were lured to go to, and who stayed long enough at school. The children in these institutions provided the fodder for missionaries to use in order to benefit from the fiscal intervention of governments in the form of badly needed grants”.
Source of Funds in Public Schools
“Whichever face one puts on it, the bottom line was that governments became the major sources of funds without which the missionaries would have to go begging at home or abroad. They never adopted the option of closing schools; they persevered and made do with whatever they had. Under those conditions ‘schools’ could sink to any depth of badness. It was to obviate that possibility that governments at home and in the colonies accepted responsibility for ensuring that what was offered to the children especially of the poor in England and the converted in Africa would at least be of some benefit to them. That was how government got dragged into the business of assisting schools.
The promise of grants-in-aid ensured that schools had reliable sources of funding if they attained defined standards. So the giving of grants was a crucial factor in the rate at which new schools were opened and old ones expanded or improved qualitatively. The fact that schools did desperate things to get listed for grants speaks the obvious that grants have always been the lifeline of almost all missionary schools.
We are lucky that the whole grants-in-aid saga is properly documented in the Phillipson Report. However, since that document is not widely available to the generality of people I have taken the liberty to use some segment of my writings (Chapter 2 of my unpublished book DEFINING THE FUTURE OF NIGERIAN EDUCATION, November, 2012) here.
The Grants-in-aid Report
“This brief highlight is about the financial assistance that government gave to schools across West Africa as an instrument for improving the quality of instruction being offered to the children in those areas.
The first purely Nigerian Education Ordinance was enacted in 1887. The Board of Education that assumed prominence at this time was empowered to use certain criteria to give grants to different levels from infant, through primary and secondary, to industrial schools. The Board even had the discretion to offer the sum of £10 to poor students to further their education at the secondary level. This and most of what follows come from the Phillipson Report,
Phillipson Report
As early as 1890 the familiar problems arising from the use of untrained ‘teachers’ in schools had become pronounced and problematic. Not only did demand outstrip supply, but many areas that also wanted schools could not be serviced. The consequence was that government had to step in to fill some gaps by establishing its own schools in areas where missionary influence was negligible. By so doing those schools became ‘models’ for the fund-strapped mission schools to copy. (The Education Code of 1908)
There were therefore generically three types of schools; the government, the mission, and the assisted schools. Although the so-called government schools were government ‘owned’, the reality was that the local chiefs and Native Courts as appropriate were responsible for the buildings and their maintenance. In fact, the recurrent cost for which government was supposedly responsible was covered in part by public funds.
The 1916 Regulation abolished the ‘payment-by-result’ procedure of making grants to schools. That was replaced with a better one that took cognizance of the overall efficiency of schools. The immediate effect of this change was a rapid increase in the number of assisted schools. The carefully spelt-out conditions included visit(s) from inspectors. This in turn led to the increased and improved capability of the Department of Education to monitor the appalling and dubious quality of schools in the regions that the Governor-General had commented upon
Important Information
What is of importance in this narrative is that from as long ago as 1887 public fund had gone into the running costs of assisted schools. Second, government had actually transferred some of its own schools to the missions in the mid-fifties of the 19th century as contained at p.24 of that very authoritative report. This information has been ignored or denied by the missions when government had cause to reverse this trend more than 80 years later when the grant-in-aid system was being grossly exploited and abused mainly by private proprietors.
After a thorough review of the grants-in-aid system which included one of the best documented and most authoritative writings on education for the period 1842 to 1946, Phillipson made his landmark and well received recommendations under the following heads (pp.93-98):
1. Division of the grants-in-aid vote
2. A national teaching profession
3. Separation scheme for non-Government certificated teachers
4. Staff and organization of the Education Department in relation to the new grant-in-aid proposals
5. Procedure in connection with the report: implementation.
Documentation
He (Phillipson) then went out specifically to make the following recommendations (p.99):
1. i. That, in suitable areas and as an experiment, Native Administrations should be encouraged to introduce local education or school rates. (Paragraph 41 (b)).
2. ii. That the Native Authority Ordinance, 1934, be amended so as to allow of local education or school rates being applied to the support of approved Voluntary Agency schools (Paragraph 41 (b)).
3. iii. That grants in aid of the recurrent recognized expenses of schools and teacher training institutions under regulations 1 to 32 and 34 of the grant-in-aid regulation be classified as Nigerian expenditure and that grant-in-aid of capital and “special purposes” expenditure under regulation 33 should be classified as regional expenditure. (Paragraph 41(f)).
4. iv. That, subject to further consideration in connection with the first allocations of revenue to the Regions due to take place in July next, the special vote ( E150,000 in the 1948-49) Estimates) for Northern Educational Development should also be classified as Nigerian expenditure.
5. v. That the provision in the Nigerian Estimates for grants in aid of recurrent recognized expenses of schools and teacher training institutions should constitute a division of the Nigeria Estimate under Head 32-Education, the arrangement being as proposed in Paragraph 48.
6. vi. That the question of establishing national scales for certificated teachers, whether employed by the government, Native Administrations, Local Authorities or approved Voluntary Agencies, should be considered by the Director of Education in consultation with the authorities concerned.(paragraph 49)
7. vii. That the general procedure after the publication of this report should be as outlined in Paragraph 52
8. viii. That for the better administration of the scheme proposed, the Senior Service establishment of the Education Department should be strengthened, particularly at the Provincial level. (Paragraph 51)
9. ix. That the method of payment of grants in aid of primary schools should be as outlined in paragraph 45 (n) and that action should be concerted accordingly between the Education Department and the Accountant-General’s Department as part of the work preparatory to bringing the regulations into effect on 1st January,1949.
10. x. That the Government should definitely accept liability for the retiring benefit of non-Government teachers under the proposed superannuation scheme. (Paragraph 50)
“The most relevant part of the Phillipson Report for the 1960s was that the question of establishing national scales for certificated teachers, whether employed by the government, Native Administrations, Local Authorities or approved Voluntary Agencies, should be considered by the Director of Education in consultation with the authorities concerned. (Paragraph 49)
Further details on the ownership of schools will be published in this column soon in sha’Allah.
