South Africa’s renewed focus on school principals is being framed as an education reform. In reality, it is a governance test with direct consequences for investment, corporate social investment (CSI) returns and the effectiveness of public spending on schools.
As authorities tighten criteria for appointing principals and revisit accountability, the issue is no longer whether leadership matters but whether the system can translate standards into safer schools, functional governance and measurable outcomes. Recent events suggest this debate is overdue.
When governance fails, learners pay
The breakdown at Wallmansthal High School in Pretoria in 2023 offered a stark example of what happens when school leadership and governance systems fail. Learners reported sustained bullying, intimidation, gambling near classrooms and deteriorating infrastructure – conditions that persisted long enough to make the school unsafe.
In late 2023, the school’s Representative Council of Learners, supported by the South African Union of Learners, formally called on the Gauteng Department of Education to intervene. Their complaints were not about a single incident, but about conditions that had persisted long enough to make the school feel unsafe and unmanageable.
What followed illustrated a familiar pattern. Reports were filed, visits were made, and short‑term measures were introduced, yet key problems continued. Learners were exposed to risk as the system worked through its processes.
A systemic problem uncovered
If cases like Wallmansthal were isolated, fixing school leadership would be simple. Replace the principal, stabilise the school and move on.
But reporting from across the country shows this is not an isolated problem. Schools are reporting higher levels of violence, ongoing discipline issues and uncertainty about who is in charge. In many cases, principals are struggling under the weight of staff shortages, heavy administrative demands and crumbling school infrastructure. Even competent leaders can be pushed into crisis management mode.
International research backs this up. UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring 2024/5 report argues that school leaders are “more than managers” and notes that education systems often struggle to identify, prepare and support principals properly. Leadership failure, in other words, is often built into the system long before a principal takes up the job.
Enforcement of standards is uneven
On paper, South Africa has clear rules. The South African Standard for Principalship and the Personnel Administrative Measures (PAM) set out what principals are responsible for, from teaching and learning to governance, staffing and resources.
There are also leadership development programmes, including accredited qualifications that cover governance, organisational management and the use of ICT in schools.
The difficulty is not a lack of policy. It is that these standards are not applied consistently, supervision is often weak, and support varies widely once principals are in office.
Where leadership reform breaks down
Three problems keep cropping up.
- Appointments are still open to manipulation. Research has repeatedly shown that local politics and unclear processes can influence who gets appointed, long before performance becomes a factor.
- Training often comes too late. Leadership development frequently starts after appointment, when principals are already dealing with serious problems, including learner safety and staff conflict.
- Responsibility is not matched with support. Principals are held accountable for safety and results, but often lack the staff, authority or fast-track intervention mechanisms needed to act. Under those conditions, accountability becomes a mere formality, while learners and teachers bear the consequences.
Why this matters for education investment and CSI
For CSI funders and private sector partners, school leadership is not a side issue. It determines whether the investment delivers results.
Connectivity, devices, digital platforms and edtech solutions cannot work properly in schools that struggle to enforce rules, manage systems or keep learners safe. National leadership frameworks already recognise this by listing the effective management of ICT as a core competency for principals – an acknowledgement that technology investment depends on leadership capacity at the school level.
Weak leadership directly undermines returns on education infrastructure spending, the value of ICT and digital learning investment, learner safety and retention, and long‑term human capital development.
What would make leadership reform work in practice?
The following is needed if leadership reform is to produce real outcomes:
- Clear and transparent appointment processes that reduce political interference.
- Preparation before the appointment that reflects the realities principals will face.
- Working conditions that allow principals to exercise real authority and responsibility.
- Rapid intervention when schools become unsafe.
Better principals can’t fix everything, but without a system that reliably selects, prepares and supports school leaders – and steps in decisively when governance fails – South Africa will continue to spend money on schools that cannot turn investment into results.
For policymakers, investors and CSI funders, leadership reform is not optional. It is the basis on which other educational reforms depend.
