EASTERN CAPE NEWS - Section27 will intervene as amicus curiae (friend of the court) in a legal challenge against the Eastern Cape Department of Education’s (ECDoE) decision to cut funding to public schools in the province.

The case, Makhanda Circle of Unity and Others v Head of Department, Eastern Cape Department of Education and Others, will be heard today, 19 August in the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court in Makhanda.

The applicants, represented by the Legal Resources Centre, are challenging the ECDoE’s decision to reduce school funding and are seeking an order declaring section 114(b) of the Amended National Norms and Standards for Public School Funding unconstitutional.

Schools receive reduced per-learner allocations

In 2023 and 2024/25, the ECDoE withheld 33.75% of the prescribed per-learner allocation from public schools in the province.

The per-learner allocation is intended to help address historical inequality in education. Quintile 1 to 3 schools, which are generally no-fee schools serving poorer communities, receive larger allocations than quintile 4 and 5 schools because they have less capacity to raise additional funds.

The funding is used for essential non-personnel costs, including school maintenance, electricity, stationery, Learner and Teacher Support Materials and municipal services.

Funding cuts could deepen inequality

Section27 says the funding is particularly important in the Eastern Cape, which has the highest proportion of the poorest schools in the country.

The organisation argues that underspending and allocations below the prescribed target disproportionately affect learners who are already vulnerable to poverty and inequality.

Section27 was granted leave to intervene as amicus in 2024 and will argue that the ECDoE’s decision unfairly discriminates against learners and undermines their constitutional right to a basic education.

Challenge to national school funding framework

The National 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 when a province cannot meet the prescribed allocation.

The applicants argue that section 114(b) is unconstitutional because it does not require the joint plan to include measures for the national and provincial education departments to make up the funding shortfall for the relevant year.

Section27 calls for funding shortfall to be addressed

Section27 argues that allowing learners to receive less than the prescribed allocation without adequate safeguards is regressive.

The organisation says the Norms and Standards represented an important shift towards a formula-based, non-racial approach to addressing poverty-related educational inequalities.

Section27 supports the relief sought by the applicants and is asking the court to address the regression in rights caused by the ECDoE’s decision to withhold funding from quintile 1 to 3 schools.

It also supports changes to section 114(b) to ensure that joint plans provide for the shortfall in school funding.

Basic education requires adequate resources

Section27 says the constitutional right to basic education requires more than access to classrooms.

It argues that learners also need qualified educators, adequate infrastructure and the resources necessary for meaningful teaching and learning.

The organisation submits that the Norms and Standards, in their current form, fail to adequately protect the right to education of learners in no-fee schools and risk enabling policy-driven discrimination against these schools at provincial level.

‘We bring you the latest Garden Route, Hessequa, Karoo news’