, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE ONLY
The Governance-Management Dichotomy in South African Public Schools: An Analysis of the
Functions, Limits, and Accountability of School Governing Bodies with Reference to Relevant
Case Law
1. Introduction: A Constitutional Partnership Between Governance and Management
The South African public school system is established upon a carefully calibrated partnership
between two distinct yet interdependent authorities: the school governing body (SGB) and the
principal. This relationship, foundational to the realisation of the right to basic education enshrined
in section 29(1) of the Constitution, is characterised by a clear separation of functions.¹ The SGB is
statutorily crafted as a form of "legislative authority" within the school, tasked with the critical
function of policy formulation. Its duties, outlined in the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996,
include adopting a constitution, determining the school's admission and language policies, and
overseeing the school's finances and property, thereby setting the strategic direction for the
institution.² In contrast, the principal acts as the "executive authority", responsible for the day-to-day
professional management and the implementation of policies, whether those policies are
promulgated by the SGB or by the Minister of Basic Education.³
This distinction was central to the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in School Governing Body
Grey College, Bloemfontein v Scheepers and Another, where the court emphasised that the
principal's functions—such as the management of educators, curriculum implementation, and the
safekeeping of records—are assigned by legislation and are not merely powers delegated by the SGB
to be withdrawn at will.⁴ This dichotomy is not a hierarchy but a collaborative framework where the
SGB governs and the principal manages, both under the overarching authority of the Head of
Department (HoD) and the Constitution. The Constitutional Court in Head of Department,
Department of Education, Free State Province v Welkom High School and Others reaffirmed that
while SGBs have the autonomy to adopt policies, they must do so within the bounds of the
Constitution and the Schools Act, and that any exercise of power by state functionaries—including
HoDs and principals—is constrained by the principle of legality, preventing any party from
unlawfully usurping the powers of another.⁵
¹ Section 29(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
² Section 16(1) of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996. See also sections 20 and 21 for the detailed functions of governing
bodies.
³ Section 16(3) of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996.
⁴ School Governing Body Grey College, Bloemfontein v Scheepers and Another (2012) ZASCA 149; (2013) 1 All SA 241 (SCA) para
17.
⁵ Head of Department, Department of Education, Free State Province v Welkom High School and Others 2013 (9) BCLR 1053 (CC);
2014 (2) SA 228 (CC) para 39.
The Governance-Management Dichotomy in South African Public Schools: An Analysis of the
Functions, Limits, and Accountability of School Governing Bodies with Reference to Relevant
Case Law
1. Introduction: A Constitutional Partnership Between Governance and Management
The South African public school system is established upon a carefully calibrated partnership
between two distinct yet interdependent authorities: the school governing body (SGB) and the
principal. This relationship, foundational to the realisation of the right to basic education enshrined
in section 29(1) of the Constitution, is characterised by a clear separation of functions.¹ The SGB is
statutorily crafted as a form of "legislative authority" within the school, tasked with the critical
function of policy formulation. Its duties, outlined in the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996,
include adopting a constitution, determining the school's admission and language policies, and
overseeing the school's finances and property, thereby setting the strategic direction for the
institution.² In contrast, the principal acts as the "executive authority", responsible for the day-to-day
professional management and the implementation of policies, whether those policies are
promulgated by the SGB or by the Minister of Basic Education.³
This distinction was central to the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in School Governing Body
Grey College, Bloemfontein v Scheepers and Another, where the court emphasised that the
principal's functions—such as the management of educators, curriculum implementation, and the
safekeeping of records—are assigned by legislation and are not merely powers delegated by the SGB
to be withdrawn at will.⁴ This dichotomy is not a hierarchy but a collaborative framework where the
SGB governs and the principal manages, both under the overarching authority of the Head of
Department (HoD) and the Constitution. The Constitutional Court in Head of Department,
Department of Education, Free State Province v Welkom High School and Others reaffirmed that
while SGBs have the autonomy to adopt policies, they must do so within the bounds of the
Constitution and the Schools Act, and that any exercise of power by state functionaries—including
HoDs and principals—is constrained by the principle of legality, preventing any party from
unlawfully usurping the powers of another.⁵
¹ Section 29(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
² Section 16(1) of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996. See also sections 20 and 21 for the detailed functions of governing
bodies.
³ Section 16(3) of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996.
⁴ School Governing Body Grey College, Bloemfontein v Scheepers and Another (2012) ZASCA 149; (2013) 1 All SA 241 (SCA) para
17.
⁵ Head of Department, Department of Education, Free State Province v Welkom High School and Others 2013 (9) BCLR 1053 (CC);
2014 (2) SA 228 (CC) para 39.
