In the previous article, I showed how basic education gradually changed from an activity carried out primarily by parents in the home into a state-controlled institutional function. Within this system, educational institutions increasingly act in loco civitatis to advance the objectives of the state.

While the current legal order is still largely built around state-regulated educational institutions, a growing share of education is taking place in decentralised, unbundled and technology-supported forms. This development may be described as non in loco - not in one place. This does not mean that education no longer has a place or an institution, but rather that it is no longer necessarily located in a single place. Different educational functions can now be performed by different role players within an integrated network.

The present education system is deeply embedded in the Constitution. Section 29 of the Constitution deals with the right to education. Subsection (1) provides that everyone has the right to a basic education. Subsection (2) deals with language in public educational institutions, subsection (3) requires independent educational institutions to be registered with the state, and subsection (4) deals with state subsidies to educational institutions.

Although section 29 does not prohibit education outside institutions, it does not expressly recognise it either. The constitutional language therefore largely reflects an institutional paradigm: public schools and independent educational institutions are expressly regulated, while education that takes place outside institutions is not expressly mentioned. It is significant that even home education in South Africa is regulated within the South African Schools Act: a form of education that may take place entirely outside a school is nevertheless dealt with in legislation designed around schools.

This institutional approach is not unique to the modern state. It can even be found in centuries-old church confessions. In  Answer 103 of the Heidelberg Catechism, we read that “God wills, first, that the ministry of the Gospel and the schools be maintained.” Changing the institutional paradigm of education will therefore require more than a few legislative amendments. It concerns not only the state’s legal framework, but also deeply rooted assumptions within the church and wider society about how education ought to take place.

Alternative forms of education

Alongside large, centrally regulated educational institutions, smaller and more decentralised forms of education have grown over recent decades. This can be seen, among other things, in the growth of home education, micro-schools and small learning centres.

In South Africa, home education has grown strongly since it was recognised by the Schools Act in 1996. Research-based estimates place the number of home-educated learners at around 300,000 — a learner population comparable with the total school population of a province such as the Northern Cape.

A further development is the growth of informal micro-schools, unregistered independent schools, low-cost schools, cottage schools and learning centres. These are often small, independent educational initiatives operated by entrepreneurs, parents, former teachers or volunteers. Many operate from residential properties in suburbs and informal settlements. Such institutions often struggle to register under the Schools Act because they are too small or differ too substantially from the traditional school model. Because many of these institutions operate outside the formal registration system, there is no reliable national figure for either the number of institutions or the number of learners attending them. Their true scale is therefore difficult to determine from official education statistics.

The phenomenon of informal learning centres is not unique to South Africa, but occurs in many countries. James Tooley describes this phenomenon in his book The Beautiful Tree (2009), showing that such forms of education are not used only by wealthy parents, but are also widespread in poor communities. His research in poor urban and peri-urban areas of Lagos State, for example, estimated that approximately 75% of school-age children attended private schools, only some of which were formally registered.

Cultural communities are also establishing new institutions designed around the needs of their communities. The best-known South African example is the Solidarity Movement, which has established, among other things, a vocational training institution and a university that accommodate students who wish to study in Afrikaans.

Home education, learning centres and higher education are further enabled by online platforms that provide curricula and assessment services.

A school traditionally combines two broad functions: care and supervision on the one hand, and education on the other. Online platforms make it possible to separate these functions.
Someone who wishes to establish a learning centre does not necessarily have to perform all the functions of a traditional school. The centre may, for example, focus on providing a safe physical environment, care and supervision, while an online platform provides the teaching, curriculum or assessment. When functions that were traditionally combined within a single educational institution are performed by different role players, this may be described as unbundled education.

The book The Third Education Solution, for example, describes how churches can use unbundled education to regain greater control over theological education. Instead of young students leaving their local congregation to attend a central, state-subsidised university, they can remain within the congregation while receiving much of their education online.

Corporate training may provide an indication of the direction in which a larger part of education and training could develop. Product- and industry-specific training in particular is often far less tied to a specific local institution or national education system. Training in the use of software and many industry certifications, for example, can be completed entirely online.

Decentralisation and unbundling are therefore related but distinct processes. Decentralisation increases the number of role players that can provide education, while unbundling distributes functions that were traditionally combined within one institution among those different role players. Digital networks then make it possible to reconnect these functions around the learner.

The response of the authorities

The growth of decentralised and unbundled education is creating increasing tension with a legal and policy framework that was developed primarily around the traditional school model. If a significant proportion of learners were eventually to move to alternative forms of education, this could affect school enrolment, demand for teaching posts and the allocation of public education expenditure.

Despite this potential impact, decentralised and unbundled education receives relatively little attention as a policy phenomenon in its own right. There is, for example, nothing in the current administration’s research agenda dealing specifically with decentralised or unbundled education. It was also largely absent as a distinct policy issue from the 2024 election manifestos.

The education debate continues to focus overwhelmingly on improving or further regulating the existing school system. Official warnings and media reports frequently describe unregistered institutions as “fly-by-night” schools and warn parents against exploitation. While institutions undoubtedly exist that mislead parents or provide poor education, it does not follow that every unregistered educational initiative is therefore inferior or fraudulent.

Alongside this rhetoric, regulatory requirements for some alternative forms of education have become stricter. The amended Schools Act requires a parent to apply to the Head of Department to register a learner for home education and provides for monitoring. The Act has also increased the maximum term of imprisonment for operating an unregistered independent school to twelve months.

The administrative capacity of education departments to identify possible offenders systematically and enforce the law is, however, limited. The system therefore depends heavily on voluntary compliance, reinforced by the deterrent effect of stricter penalties.

Gauteng provides a visible example of sporadic enforcement. In September 2026, the provincial department reported that 61 schools had been investigated since January, of which 32 had received closure notices. This kind of sporadic, high-profile enforcement differs from systematic day-to-day law enforcement. Its public visibility may therefore have a deterrent effect that extends far beyond the relatively small number of institutions against which direct action is taken.

The fact that many public schools continue to perform well — sometimes even outperforming independent schools — appears to support the argument that the traditional school model can still function successfully.

Successful public schools, however, do not necessarily operate as isolated educational institutions. Particularly in affluent communities, the formal school is supplemented by parental contributions and a wide range of external role players, including additional staff, tutors, therapists, psychologists, medical practitioners, sports coaches and other private services. The learner’s actual educational environment therefore already extends far beyond the formal school.

This raises the question of the extent to which the success of some public schools is made possible partly by the network of private resources and services that surrounds them. The network model is therefore not emerging only outside the existing school system; elements of it are already visible around successful traditional schools.

The growing gap and the way forward

On the one hand, decentralised and unbundled forms of education are growing, including home education, informal learning centres and new community institutions. On the other hand, stricter legislation and regulation make it increasingly difficult to operate such forms of education in accordance with the requirements of the law. The gap between de jure and de facto is therefore widening.

The wider the gap becomes between the formal legal framework and actual educational practice, the greater the potential for conflict. Established interests within the traditional system may also place pressure on the authorities to enforce existing provisions more strictly, particularly if the growth of alternative education increasingly affects those interests.

The strategy going forward has three parts.

First, concrete proposals need to be developed for adapting the de jure environment so that it can better accommodate alternative forms of education.

One such proposal has been developed by Cape Home Educators (CHE), which proposes amending section 29 of the Constitution so that alternative forms of education are expressly recognised. Churches that subscribe to the Heidelberg Catechism could likewise consider whether the confession should place greater emphasis on instruction itself rather than on maintaining a particular institutional form.

Second, organisations are needed that can represent and protect alternative forms of education when administrative or legal disputes arise. Such organisations can support families and learning centres, engage with the state, and participate in developing a legal framework that better accommodates new forms of education. Regular dialogue may also reduce misunderstandings and prevent unnecessary conflict.

Third, the new de facto reality itself needs to be developed further. Workable home-education networks, learning centres, community institutions and digital education models can demonstrate that effective education can take place outside the traditional institutional model.

Creating a new reality first and then seeking recognition for it within the legal framework is not an unfamiliar approach in South Africa. In discussions about Afrikaner self-determination, a striking formulation is attributed to the then Deputy President Thabo Mbeki:

“Show us the animal, create a reality. Create a de facto reality that we can recognise de jure.”

The same principle can be applied to education: build workable forms of education within the space that already exists, protect them where conflict arises, and at the same time work towards a legal order that recognises the new reality.

Current trends therefore point towards a future in which education increasingly becomes decentralised and unbundled, with parents, tutors, centres, institutions and platforms performing different functions. Decentralisation increases the number of role players; unbundling divides the functions among them; and networks reconnect them around the learner. In such a system, education is no longer necessarily located within one institution or in one place, but is distributed across a network of people, communities, institutions and technology.
Non in uno loco, sed in rete — not in one place, but in a network.