Should schooling be compulsory, or are we asking the wrong question?
South Africa is arguing about pass marks again. Parliament has just debated whether the long-standing 30% matric pass mark should be scrapped and replaced with a higher standard, some MPs backed a shift towards 50% as the new minimum. The motion did not pass, but the debate did what it always does: it pushed the spotlight back onto what we expect from our school system and what we are actually getting.
But once you pull on that thread, a bigger, more complex question emerges:
If we are serious about quality, is compulsory schooling working, or is the system simply not compelling enough for the people inside it?
Access is not the crisis. Quality is.
On paper, South Africa has done the access part. School attendance is legally compulsory, historically from age seven to fifteen, and recent reforms now make Grade R mandatory, pulling six-year-olds formally into the system. Attendance for seven-to-seventeen-year-olds is close to universal.
In practice, quality is the problem; and it is severe.
- PIRLS 2021 found that 81% of Grade 4 learners cannot read for meaning, in any language.
- This figure has worsened since 2016.
- International benchmarking consistently places South Africa at the bottom of global reading rankings.
- TIMSS shows the same pattern for early maths and science.
That is not a marginal weakness. It signals a system that is failing at the most basic task: helping children understand what they read.
Does compulsory schooling guarantee learning?
Globally, education scholars have long questioned whether compulsory schooling automatically delivers better outcomes. Attendance does not equal learning.
South African research reflects this clearly. Key structural issues continue to undermine performance:
- Overcrowded classrooms
- Teacher shortages
- Uneven teaching quality
- Weak accountability systems
When the classroom is stretched thin, compulsory attendance often increases pressure without improving results.
A more provocative argument takes it further:
If classrooms are filled with learners who are there only because the law says so, teachers spend most of their time on crowd control, not teaching.
Learners who might thrive in technical, creative or entrepreneurial environments are pushed into a one-size-fits-all academic track. Those who disengage early often stay in the system for years without gaining the skills that matter later.
A critique from the Free Market Foundation (FMF)
The Free Market Foundation argues that compulsory schooling does more than enforce attendance, it blocks innovation. Their stance is that heavy state control creates:
- Rigid, centralised systems
- Little room for new models
- Limited space for entrepreneurs
- Union-driven constraints
- Fixed curricula
- Persistent inequality
Drawing on economist Milton Friedman, they argue mass schooling stratifies society by making educational success a gateway and educational failure a lifelong penalty. Millions spend years on school benches without emerging literate, while poor outcomes shape how young people see themselves.
Whether one agrees or not, the critique raises a legitimate question about how much the system itself limits what is possible.
Could less rigidity create better pathways?
In theory, if compulsory schooling were less rigid, paired with credible alternatives, South Africa could open diverse pathways:
- Vocational colleges
- Apprenticeships
- Arts and creative academies
- Digital and coding bootcamps
- Technical trades
- Entrepreneurial programmes
Some learners would stay on an academic matric track; others might transition earlier into well-funded technical or practical routes.
But this theory hits one massive obstacle:
South Africa does not yet have enough high-quality alternative pathways at scale.
Inequality would simply repeat itself:
- Wealthier families could design customised educational journeys.
- Poorer families would be left with fewer options and weaker institutional support.
This is why most child-rights organisations still view compulsory schooling as a necessary safeguard.
The real question: is schooling compelling?
Maybe the debate is not about whether schooling must be compulsory, but whether the system is compelling enough to make compulsion unnecessary.
If a classroom offered:
- Safety
- Dignity
- Curiosity
- Skills development
- A believable future pathway
you would not need the law to enforce attendance.
Young people “vote with their feet” all the time. Coding bootcamps, design programmes, sports academies and creative studios often have waiting lists because they feel purposeful, relevant and connected to opportunity.
The ZA Group Chat split: three camps, one problem
Within the ZA Group Chat, opinions diverge:
1. The Safeguard Camp
Compulsory schooling is non-negotiable in a country where school is often the only stable institution in a child’s life.
2. The Pathways Camp
The current model is too academic and exam-driven, and it overlooks talent in trades, creativity and entrepreneurship.
3. The Realist Camp
Raising the pass mark from 30% to 50% without fixing early-grade literacy or infrastructure is cosmetic.
It signals “high standards” while many schools still struggle with basics, for example, “a toilet that flushes”.
Where the honest answer sits
Compulsory schooling alone will not save the system.
Scrapping it will not save it either.
What could shift outcomes is a national pivot from access to learning:
- Invest heavily in early-grade reading and numeracy
- Strengthen teacher support and accountability
- Expand technical, vocational and creative pathways
- Ensure alternatives are credible, funded and respected
- Improve school infrastructure and classroom environments
Until then, debates about 30% vs 50% will keep dominating headlines, because they are easier political battles than the long-term work of fixing classrooms, training teachers and redesigning pathways.
The real national challenge is to build a system so effective, purposeful and compelling that the compulsory part becomes almost irrelevant.