SCA dismisses challenges to Western Cape collaboration schools

The Supreme Court of Appeal has dismissed challenges from Equal Education and the South African Democratic Teachers’ Union (Sadtu) against laws establishing collaboration schools, donor-funded public schools, and a provincial school evaluation authority. The challenge was directed at a ruling by the Western Cape High Court. Equal Education contended that the Western Cape Provincial School Education Amendment Act did not guarantee learner and parent representation on school governing bodies, and did not provide sufficient criteria for converting a public school to either a collaboration or donor-funded school.

Sadtu argued that the amended legislation conflicted with the South African Schools Act provisions for school governing bodies' composition and that the impugned provisions were irrational and vague, failing to identify suitable donors and operating partners for SGBs. Sadtu also claimed that the provisions unjustifiably infringed the union and its members' collective bargaining rights.

The High Court considered the overall quality of education in South African public schools, noting that most schools were in poor condition, learners were inadequately prepared, and school leadership lacked effectiveness. The court determined that collaboration and donor-funded schools required meaningful parent and stakeholder engagement in their governance.

The High Court found that the impugned provisions did not undermine the important role of parents and other stakeholders in public schools' governance. The court also ruled that collaboration and donor-funded schools were indeed public schools, despite not being ordinary ones. The High Court did not find any basis for Equal Education's contention that the Act created a governance gap and compromised parent and learner representation in SGBs of collaboration and donor-funded schools.

Equal Education argued that there was no clear process for converting a public school to a collaboration or donor-funded school, which the court dismissed as unconvincing.