Фонд свободных рынков считает, что закон BELA лишь переносит, а не решает споры о школьном управлении

BELA Act shifts rather than resolves school governance disputes, says Free Market Foundation 25 August 2026 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. Statement issued by the Free Market Foundation, 25 August 2026