Minister of Basic Education Siviwe Gwarube has released implementation guidelines on school language and admissions policies under the Basic Education Laws Amendment (Bela) Act. (Photo: Gallo Images / Sharon Seretlo) 
Basic Education Minister Siviwe Gwarube’s newly released guidelines for implementing the Basic Education Laws Amendment (Bela) Act aim to assist provincial education departments in navigating two of the act’s most contentious issues: school admissions and language policies.
The guidelines also address the new legal mandate that extends compulsory education by an additional year to incorporate Grade R, as well as introduce measures for the increased regulation of home schooling. Approved by the Council of Education Ministers, the guidelines have nonetheless met with a mixed response.
According to the new guidelines sections 4 and 5 of the act will undergo thorough public consultation before any government directives can be issued.
The guidelines state that a school’s language policy must prioritise the best interests of learners, while also taking into account available resources, classroom capacity, and what is offered at surrounding schools.
Structured process
The government will not be able to impose decisions unilaterally — instead, a structured process must be followed before any changes are made to a school’s language or admission policies. School governing bodies, parents, relevant associations, and the broader community in which the school operates will all play a role in these decisions.
Under the regulations, before a provincial education head can direct a school to adopt more than one language of instruction, they must first ensure that all public participation requirements outlined in the South African Schools Act are met.
These include issuing public notice and allowing for a comment period, during which the school, its governing body, parents, and the community can make informed submissions on the proposed change. A public hearing must also be held with reasonable notice, and stakeholders must be given at least 30 days to submit their input.
On admissions, the guidelines advise that if a provincial department wishes to force a school to change policy, the department must allow the school governing body an opportunity to dispute and discuss the change.
Read more: Bela Bill seeks to bring SA’s education system in line with Constitution, say civil society bodies
Education expert Mary Metcalfe has welcomed the guidelines, stating that they align with both the act itself and existing national and provincial norms and standards for admissions and language policy.
Metcalfe stated that the Bela Bill already made provision for meaningful public participation from school communities and governing bodies, indicating confidence in the law’s inclusivity on this front. On the issue of language policy, she said the guidelines were fully consistent with the Bela Bill and should help enable smoother implementation, particularly as provinces began preparations for the 2026 academic year.
“The planning for the 2026 school year will need to ensure that all provinces provide for the admission of all children who turn six in 2026 — Grade R in all schools for all eligible children,” she said.
Concerns raised
However, other stakeholders have raised significant concerns about the guidelines’ practical impact and legal status. Equal Education Law Centre attorney Ebrahiem Daniels and senior researcher Katherine Sutherland said that, in their preliminary view, the guidelines were non-binding — as they themselves acknowledge — and carry little to no legal weight for provincial education departments. They added that the Department of Basic Education had the authority to issue such guidelines, and did so routinely, from exam protocols to hygiene practices in schools.
“These particular guidelines, in our opinion, add little practical value. They largely restate what is already in Bela in more complicated and convoluted language,” they said.
Daniels and Sutherland noted that although the Department of Basic Education acknowledged giving “key stakeholders” only a short window to review the draft guidelines, citing urgency, it remained unclear how those stakeholders were chosen — and no broad public call for comment was made.
“Civil society organisations currently working in education were not consulted and were not alerted, including ourselves and our social movement partner Equal Education. On top of that, we are aware from consultations with others that they were not either,” they said.
From their Equal Education Law Centre understanding, the consultation primarily involved representatives from organisations historically opposed to the language and admissions provisions in the Bela Bill.
“Government sources indicate these same groups were involved in drafting the soon to be released draft norms on school capacity. Many of these stakeholders have, in the past, prioritised maintaining small class sizes in well-resourced public schools over broader equity considerations, even when other schools face overcrowding.
“Our concern is that this recent pattern of favouring stakeholders with clear vested interests may influence the upcoming binding regulations on school capacity, which are far more important than non-binding guidelines,” they said.
Read more: AfriForum and Solidarity to challenge full implementation of Bela Act in court
When asked about the potential for the uneven application of the guidelines across provinces or districts, Daniels and Sutherland said the risk was high, given the significant disparities in administrative capacity, financial resources, and political leadership across provinces. They noted that some provinces may interpret the guidelines in line with political priorities, while others may treat them more strictly or disregard them altogether. They also pointed out that differing apartheid legacies could lead to provinces approaching language and admissions policies in fundamentally different ways.
Daniels and Sutherland noted that the guidelines came at a time when schools and education departments urgently needed clarity. However, instead of offering clear, practical direction, the guidelines tended to echo Bela’s language while introducing new layers of procedural complexity not found in the legislation.
“The length and complexity issue is particularly problematic. A school principal seeking clarity on admission procedures must now navigate pages of detailed factors, cross-references, and procedural requirements that could have been streamlined into clear decision-making frameworks. The guidelines; convoluted approach may actually hinder rather than help implementation,” they said.
“The irony is that in a purported attempt to provide guidance on the interpretation and implementation of Bela, the minister has created a document that may require its own interpretation.”
Sadtu labels guidelines unlawful
The South African Democratic Teachers’ Union (Sadtu) has condemned Gwarube for releasing what it calls “purported guidelines”, describing the move as arrogant and unlawful. In a media statement, Sadtu said the minister lacked the legal authority to issue such guidelines, pointing out that, under the Constitution, only regulations — not guidelines — could be made in terms of Bela.
“We are yet to understand what legal basis and authority these purported guidelines derive from,” the union said, noting that Gwarube herself admitted the guidelines had no binding or lawful effect.
The union also accused the minister of deliberately creating confusion and advancing a political agenda aligned with her party, the Democratic Alliance (DA).
Sadtu emphasised that it had fully participated in the lawful development of the Bela regulations, which were concluded at the end of March 2025. However, it said it had seen no progress on the formal release of those regulations since then. The union has urged MECs and education department heads not to distribute the guidelines to schools. It has also called on all school governing bodies and its union members serving on them to disregard the minister’s document.
The National Professional Teachers’ Organisation of South Africa (Naptosa) voiced concerns over the limited consultation period and the non-binding nature of the guidelines.
Read more: Bela Act makes Grade R compulsory, but where is the money?
While acknowledging the value of stakeholder input, spokesperson Basil Manuel warned that the short review window and lack of legal force risked uneven implementation across provinces — particularly on key issues like compulsory Grade R, language policies, admissions, and school governing bodies’ roles.
Manuel also flagged concerns about the recommendation that Early Childhood Development (ECD) centres provide Grade R and register as independent schools. He noted that many under-resourced centres may struggle to comply without significant provincial support, infrastructure investment, and capacity building.
Manuel also reaffirmed Naptosa’s commitment to advocating for fair, legally sound policies that guaranteed quality public education for all learners. DM