SECTION27 will intervene as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the case between Makhanda Circle of Unity and Others v Head of Department, Eastern Cape Department of Education and Others. The applicants, represented by the Legal Resources Centre, are challenging the Eastern Cape Department of Education’s (ECDoE) decision to cut funding at public schools in the Eastern Cape. The applicants also seek an order rendering section 114(b) of the Amended National Norms and Standards of Public School Funding unconstitutional. The matter will be heard on 19 August 2026 in the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court in Makhanda.
In 2023 and 2024/25, the ECDoE decided to withhold 33.75% of the prescribed per-learner allocation from public schools in the province. The per-learner allocation is an important mechanism for redressing historical inequality. Schools in quintiles 1–3, which are generally no-fee schools serving poorer communities, receive greater allocations than quintile 4-5 schools because they have limited capacity to raise additional funds. The allocation is intended to fund essential non-personnel costs, including school maintenance, electricity, stationery, Learner and Teacher Support Materials and municipal services. This funding is particularly important in the Eastern Cape, which has the highest proportion of the poorest schools in the country. Underspending and below-target allocations therefore have a disproportionate impact on learners who are already most vulnerable to inequality and poverty.
SECTION27 was granted leave to intervene as amicus in 2024 and will argue that the ECDoE’s decision unfairly discriminates against learners and violates their constitutional right to a basic education. The National Norms and Standards for Public School Funding are intended to promote equality and ensure that each learner’s basic education needs are met, particularly for underprivileged schools.
The Norms and Standards for Public School Funding establish a national framework intended to promote equality and ensure that learners’ basic educational needs are met. Paragraph 114(b) provides for a joint plan involving the provincial education department, the Department of Basic Education, and provincial and national treasuries where a province cannot meet the prescribed allocation. However, the applicants call on the court to render section 114(b) unconstitutional for failing to meet the transformative objectives of the Norms and Standards, in that it fails to include that the joint plan include steps on how the national and provincial education departments would make up the shortfall for the year.
In their submissions, SECTION27 argues that the shortfalls that result in learners receiving less than the prescribed allocation, without adequate safeguards for all affected learners, is regressive. The Norms and Standards for Public School Funding represented an important shift towards a formula-based, non-racial approach to redress, designed to address poverty-related educational inequalities on an ongoing basis.
SECTION27 supports the relief sought by the applicant, for the court to address the resulting regression in rights caused by the ECDOE’s decision to withhold funding from quintile 1-3 schools, and to remedy section 114(b) to ensure that the joint plans are put in place to provide for the shortfall in funding allocation.
The right to basic education requires more than access to classrooms. It requires qualified educators, adequate infrastructure, and the resources necessary for meaningful teaching and learning. SECTION27 therefore submits that the Norms and Standards, in their current form, violate the right to education of learners in no-fee schools and implicitly endorse structured, policy-driven discrimination against no-fee schools at a provincial level.
For media enquiries contact:
Pearl Nicodemus | nicodemus@section27.org.za | 082 298 2636
0 Comments