25 August 2026
Blaai af vir Afrikaanse weergawe.
The Free Market Foundation (FMF) today published a paper examining the implications of the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Act for school governance, arguing that the Act’s increased provincial oversight over admission and language policies does not resolve the underlying tensions that have historically produced conflict between school governing bodies (SGBs) and provincial education departments.
The paper, “Education Over Interference: The Limits of the Hybrid Governance Model in the BELA Act”, argues that South Africa’s basic education system has long operated under a hybrid governance model in which the Department of Basic Education, provincial education departments, and SGBs exercise overlapping forms of authority. The BELA Act significantly expands provincial authority within this existing framework, rather than resolving the tensions inherent in it.
The paper forms part of the FMF’s Liberty First policy initiative.
“The disputes over language and admission policies cannot simply be understood as a consequence of excessive SGB autonomy,” says Ayanda Sakhile Zulu, FMF Policy Officer and author of the paper. “They reflect a deeper disagreement about how education should be governed, including the appropriate balance between school autonomy and state intervention.”
The paper examines the Constitutional Court’s judgments in Hoërskool Ermelo and Rivonia Primary School, arguing that these disputes reflect competing understandings of educational governance. SGBs have generally approached language and admission policies with an emphasis on school autonomy, mother-tongue education, local institutional realities, and educational standards, while proponents of stronger state intervention have emphasised so-called substantive equality and transformation through state action.
“The BELA Act strengthens one side of this existing governance arrangement without resolving the underlying disagreement between the state and schools over the appropriate scope of school-level autonomy,” says Zulu. “Greater provincial intervention may therefore change the form of these disputes without eliminating them.”
The paper further argues that the expectation that pre-emptive provincial oversight will prevent disputes from escalating into litigation may be misplaced. While provincial departments may intervene earlier in the policy-making process, disagreements over whether a school’s language or admission policy should be approved could themselves become administrative disputes and ultimately result in further litigation.
“The problem is not simply that there has been too little state intervention,” says Zulu. “The deeper problem is that the hybrid governance model places actors with fundamentally different understandings of educational governance within the same institutional framework.”
The FMF argues that the appropriate response to educational inequality should not be to reduce the autonomy of schools that are performing well, but to improve the quality and capacity of schools that continue to struggle. This includes strengthening existing public schools and expanding educational infrastructure to address capacity constraints.
“Rather than bringing successful schools under greater state control in the name of ‘transformation’, policymakers should focus on improving the schools that are failing to meet the standards that these institutions have achieved,” concludes Zulu. “Educational transformation should not come at the expense of institutional autonomy and educational excellence.”
The FMF recommends that the BELA Act be repealed in its entirety, or that sections 4 and 5 concerning language and admission policies be repealed as an immediate step. More broadly, the FMF calls for a reconsideration of the governance framework established by the Schools Act, with a clearer distribution of authority that preserves meaningful school-level autonomy while maintaining appropriate constitutional safeguards.
Ends.
***
BELA-wet verskuif eerder as om skoolbestuursgeskille op te los, sê Vryemarkstigting
25 Augustus 2026
Scroll up for English version.
Die Vryemarkstigting (FMF) het vandag ’n beleidsvoorstel gepubliseer wat die implikasies van die Wysigingswet op Basiese Onderwyswette (BELA) vir skoolbestuur ondersoek. Die FMF argumenteer dat die Wet se verhoogde provinsiale toesig oor toelatings- en taalbeleide nie die onderliggende spanning oplos wat histories konflik tussen skoolbeheerliggame (SBL’s) en provinsiale onderwysdepartemente veroorsaak het nie.
Die voorstel, “Education Over Interference: The Limits of the Hybrid Governance Model in the BELA Act”, argumenteer dat Suid-Afrika se basiese onderwysstelsel lank reeds onder ’n hibriede bestuursmodel funksioneer waarin die Departement van Basiese Onderwys, provinsiale onderwysdepartemente, en SBL’s oorvleuelende vorme van gesag uitoefen. Die BELA-wet brei provinsiale gesag binne hierdie bestaande raamwerk aansienlik uit, eerder as om die inherente spanning daarin op te los.
Die voorstel vorm deel van die FMF se Liberty First-beleidsinisiatief.
“Die geskille oor taal- en toelatingsbeleide kan nie bloot verstaan word as ’n gevolg van oormatige SBL-outonomie nie,” sê Ayanda Sakhile Zulu, FMF Beleidbeampte en outeur van die voorstel. “Dit weerspieël ’n dieper meningsverskil oor hoe onderwys bestuur moet word, insluitend die gepaste balans tussen skooloutonomie en staatsinmenging.”
Die voorstel ondersoek die Grondwetlike Hof se uitsprake in Hoërskool Ermelo en Rivonia Primary School en argumenteer dat hierdie geskille mededingende opvattings van onderwysbestuur weerspieël. SBL’s het taal- en toelatingsbeleide oor die algemeen met klem op skooloutonomie, moedertaalonderrig, plaaslike institusionele realiteite, en onderwysstandaarde benader, terwyl voorstanders van sterker staatsinmenging sogenaamde substantiewe gelykheid en transformasie deur staatsoptrede beklemtoon het.
“Die BELA-wet versterk die een kant van hierdie bestaande bestuursreëling sonder om die onderliggende meningsverskil tussen die staat en skole oor die gepaste omvang van skoolvlak-outonomie op te los,” sê Zulu. “Groter provinsiale inmenging mag derhalwe die vorm van hierdie geskille verander sonder om dit uit te skakel.”
Die voorstel argumenteer verder dat die verwagting dat voorkomende provinsiale toesig geskille sal verhoed om tot litigasie te eskaleer, moontlik misplaas is. Alhoewel provinsiale departemente vroeër in die beleidsmakingsproses mag ingryp, kan meningsverskille oor of ’n skool se taal- of toelatingsbeleid goedgekeur moet word self administratiewe geskille word en uiteindelik tot verdere litigasie lei.
“Die probleem is nie bloot dat daar te min staatsinmenging was nie,” sê Zulu. “Die dieper probleem is dat die hibriede bestuursmodel rolspelers met fundamenteel verskillende opvattings van onderwysbestuur binne dieselfde institusionele raamwerk plaas.”
Die FMF argumenteer dat die gepaste reaksie op onderwysongelykheid nie is om die outonomie van skole wat goed presteer te verminder nie, maar om die gehalte en kapasiteit van skole wat steeds sukkel te verbeter. Dit sluit in die versterking van bestaande openbare skole en die uitbreiding van onderwysinfrastruktuur om kapasiteitsbeperkings aan te spreek.
“In plaas daarvan om suksesvolle skole onder groter staatsbeheer te bring in die naam van ‘transformasie’, behoort beleidmakers te fokus op die verbetering van die skole wat nie daarin slaag om die standaarde te haal wat hierdie instellings bereik het nie,” sluit Zulu af. “Onderwystransformasie behoort nie ten koste van institusionele outonomie en onderwysuitnemendheid te kom nie.”
Die FMF beveel aan dat die BELA-wet in sy geheel herroep word, of dat artikels 4 en 5 rakende taal- en toelatingsbeleide as onmiddellike stap herroep word. Breër gesproke doen die FMF ’n beroep op ’n heroorweging van die bestuursraamwerk wat deur die Skolewet tot stand gebring is, met ’n duideliker verdeling van gesag wat betekenisvolle skoolvlak-outonomie behou terwyl gepaste grondwetlike waarborge gehandhaaf word.
Einde.
