Questions about the integrity of educator appointments remain unresolved in South Africa ten years after a ministerial task team investigated the alleged sale of teaching posts.
The inquiry exposed vulnerabilities in a system intended to ensure that appointments are fair, equitable and transparent. A decade later, how well does South Africa’s system protect teacher appointments and promotions from improper influence? The question remains relevant because allegations of post-selling, nepotism (giving jobs to friends and family members) and unfair promotion processes continue to be investigated and reported.
My research focuses on education policy, school governance, management, leadership and teacher education. In a 2025 study, my colleagues and I examined what regulates and influences educator appointments and promotions in South African public schools.
We found that South Africa has clear rules for educator appointments. However, informal influence, uneven governance capacity and blurred stakeholder roles can affect what happens in practice. In particular, we found that educators felt it wasn’t clear that appointment processes were followed properly.
These insights matter because who becomes a teacher, head of department, deputy principal or principal is not simply an internal school staffing matter. These decisions shape school leadership, teaching and learning, staff morale and communities’ confidence in public education.
For parents, educators and school communities, the concern is whether people are appointed to responsible positions because they are suited to the role, or because of connections or influence.
A problem identified a decade ago
In 2016, the ministerial task team chaired by Professor John Volmink investigated allegations of irregularities in the appointment of educators. The report identified:
undue influence by union members and other actors over governing bodies and selection processes
cadre deployment (placing organisationally or politically aligned people in positions)
weak departmental oversight, particularly at provincial, district and circuit levels
limited capacity among school governing bodies (the statutory bodies responsible for governing public schools, with parents forming the majority of voting members).
The task team recommended stronger departmental oversight, more professional selection of senior staff, clearer limits on union observer roles and measures to end cadre deployment.
Concerns have continued to surface across provinces. In April 2026, the Education Labour Relations Council set aside a Western Cape principal’s appointment after finding unfairness in the promotion process. The same month, the Free State provincial Department of Education launched an investigation into allegations of nepotism at a special needs school. And in July 2026, the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education ordered an independent investigation into fresh allegations concerning the sale of employment posts.
Educator appointments follow a defined legal process. Under the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 and the Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998, school governing bodies recommend candidates to the provincial head of department, who makes the final appointment. The Personnel Administrative Measures set out the shortlisting and interview procedures. Union representatives participate as observers rather than decision-makers.
Perceptions of teacher hiring practices
The mixed-methods study combined surveys and interviews in public schools across KwaZulu-Natal, the Free State and the Western Cape. It drew on participants from 20 schools in each province. They included educators, heads of department, deputy principals, principals and teacher union representatives.
The study found a gap between the formal rules governing appointments and how these processes were experienced in practice. Participants described how informal influence, uneven power and governance weaknesses could shape appointment and promotion decisions. They described situations in which personal relationships, organisational affiliations and unequal power between stakeholders affected processes.
We heard comments such as:
The appointment of educators to promotional posts is unfair, as it often depends on bribery rather than on educators’ competency.
Less than a third (29.4%) of survey respondents agreed that appointments strictly followed national policy and legislation. More than half (53%) felt school governing bodies did not ensure fair and transparent processes, while 49% rated union influence as moderate or high. Nearly three-quarters (72.5%) agreed that political or personal affiliations influenced appointments.
Another comment was:
Schools face pressure from departmental officials and teacher unions. Divisions in school governing bodies also impact fairness and transparency.
One view was:
The governing body has too much power. If you pay them, then they are willing to appoint you.
Together, the findings show that educators felt appointment processes were unfair, unclear and inconsistent.
Unfair appointments had an effect on morale, as seen in this comment:
This breaks good, dedicated, sincere workers.
The findings do not suggest that every appointment process was compromised or that these practices occurred uniformly across South African schools. They did, however, show that many of the issues that were identified a decade ago are still there.
Teacher unions and school governing bodies do have legitimate roles in democratic school governance. Governing bodies represent school communities. Teacher unions protect educators’ interests and observe appointment processes. The problem is not democratic participation itself. But when informal influence overrides formal roles and procedures, it weakens the integrity of appointments. It affects the quality of leadership, teaching and public trust in South African education.
Capacity and role clarity matter
School governing body members make consequential appointment decisions. But their knowledge of recruitment procedures, employment law and policy varies. They therefore need practical preparation in shortlisting, interviewing, managing conflicts of interest and recognising improper interference.
Role boundaries must also be clear: unions have an observer function and principals provide professional expertise. Neither should exert influence beyond those roles.
Merit-based appointments require particular nuance in South Africa because the education system continues to carry the legacy of apartheid-era racial exclusion and inequality. Suitability for a post must therefore be considered alongside constitutional commitments to ability, fairness, redress and broad representation, and legislative commitments to employment equity.
Transformation and the appointment of competent, appropriately qualified people should not be treated as competing goals. A credible process should achieve both.
What needs to change
The study concludes that South Africa does not need another layer of appointment policy. It needs:
practical capacity-building for school governing bodies
transparent scoring and record-keeping
management of conflicts of interest
stronger provincial oversight
consequences where procedures are deliberately manipulated.
No individual’s or organisation’s informal influence should be more powerful than the rules intended to protect merit, fairness and public trust.
Amy Sarah Padayachee receives funding from the National Research Foundation.
By Amy Sarah Padayachee, Lecturer, Cape Peninsula University of Technology
