Now, the main question is, are home educators required to include the seven learning areas in an application? The answer is no...and yes. Bear with me....

The legal requirement of an exemption application is that it demonstrates that "the child is to be taught at least as regularly and well as in a registered school." This does not mean "the same as" but it does mean the expectation is there that the child will be taught to at least a comparable standard, across a curriculum "at least as broad in scope" as they would experience in school. What that looks like is open to some interpretation and is not legally defined (which is a good thing), but this leaves Ministry staff looking for some kind of way of deciding whether applications meet that criteria. It's understandable that they fall back on their understanding of what a curriculum ought to look like, based in the NZ curriculum. When staff see an application which does not cover some of the above areas, they usually ask for information about them, and this can cause outrage amongst homeschoolers who like to insist that "we are not required to teach the same subjects as schools." 

It is true that we are not legally required to teach specific subjects. However, if one sets aside the idea of "required subjects" and sits back and looks at each of the learning areas and what they include, I think most reasonable people would agree that each of these are really just natural areas of learning that we ALL cover in some fashion with our children - the only exception being older teens who are at a level where they narrow their focus to prepare for specific further study or careers (and the Ministry are fine with that). Not sure about this? Read each of the following statements, and ask yourself whether you agree with them:

English (literacy): I do not want my children to learn to read, write, speak or listen. We're absolutely not going to include this learning area. 

Math (numeracy): no counting, adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing, telling time, handling money, understanding days, or measuring anything for my kid!

Science: I plan to ensure that my child does NOT explore the natural world around them. We will not watch bugs, the clouds, ask questions about the stars and moon. There will be no experiments conducted here. I want to ensure my child remains ignorant of gravity, motion, centrifugal force, the seasons, weather, plants, insects, animals, hot, cold, etc etc. Nope, no science in our program! And we definitely will not be reading any books or watching any videos about inventors and inventions or any topics such as those above.

Social Sciences: my children will not be learning about people, places, events, the planet, volcanoes, earthquakes, oceans, how to read maps, who is in our community, emergency services, how to relate to other people and so on. We can definitely leave this learning area out of our program!

Technology: we wish to prevent our children engaging in any practical or hands-on learning. Solving problems is for the birds! There will be no cooking, gardening, sewing, woodwork, model making, financial skills, business skills, animal care, metal work, electronics, or life skills taught in our home thank you very much! And my child will NEVER learn to use a computer or other IT device. 

Health and P.E: Nope, my child will not run, climb, bike, play any sports, go for walks, swim or otherwise engage in physical activity. I much prefer them to be couch potatoes. And teach them about hand washing, personal hygiene, dental health, basic first aid, how their bodies change over time, how to have healthy relationships, how to deal with emotions, personal safety etc etc? Of course not!

The Arts: I don't have any pens, pencils or art supplies at home, and I certainly would not encourage my child to paint, draw, or do crafts. They will not listen to any music, let alone try to learn an instrument. We'll never visit art galleries or museums, or enjoy a public concert, play or other performance. Dancing will not be permitted, and they can forget dressing up and making up their own plays! And singing? Definitely not!

Now, I hope you have not been offended by my deliberately tongue-in-cheek sarcasm. My intention is to help the reader see how crazy it generally is to say we will NOT be including any of these areas in our children's lives. Many of these things will happen naturally in life, even if we have no particular plan, program, curriculum or whatever for them. And that's ok - for the purposes of the applications such things can and should be included by taking some time to think about and identify the kinds of things that are likely to be covered one way or the other, and ways in which your children might explore them. 

The purpose of this article is not to tell you what to include in the application for each of the learning areas (though the above might give you some clues). I will say that, in general, more detail and a degree of structure is expected for the "core" subjects of English, Math, Science and Social Studies in an application. That structure can be based on curriculum, unit studies, child-led learning, hands-on learning or whatever you choose. The Ministry will basically be looking for sufficient ideas, topics, resources and enough of a general approach to make sense in these subjects. When it comes to literacy and numeracy, those are considered key, and reasonable detail, given the age of the child, on next learning steps and how you will support them will be expected.

For the "non-core" subjects - Technology, the Arts, Health & P.E (and languages if you choose to include them) - these can be as unstructured as you like - they are mostly about identifying and writing down the kinds of things that are a natural part of life, or things you want to try with the kids or help them learn, and opportunities for engagement that they have. Where a child also has a particular interest, involvement etc already, then you will of course want to include these (eg in a sports team, dance class, having music lessons, learning coding etc). You don't need a ton of detail - but to show that the child will receive appropriate opportunities to engage with activities in these learning areas.

If you would like more specific guidance on the content of an application, then my exemption guide pack will be of great help. It is available HERE. 

 Conclusion:
I hope this article has helped you to understand why the seven learning areas are both natural and appropriate to think about in terms of your child's learning program or home education. You do not have to call your learning areas by the same labels as above. The key point is that you show a broad program with no obvious gaps in appropriate engagement opportunities. 
And, please, can we experienced home educators stop jumping up and down when the Ministry asks an applicant about what they will do for a given learning area (I used to do that too until I realised the above), and instead focus on helping parents understand what that might include?  There are certainly some things we should resist, but I suggest this is not a hill to die on.

In Part 1 I posted a copy of a letter sent to the Ministry of Education on behalf of parents affected by their position that exempt children could not be present at Playcentres while their siblings are attending sessions. In Part 2 I posted their response and my follow up email in which I discuss the regulatory frameworks around Playcentre. This post contains the subsequent emails between the Ministry and myself on this matter, as well as one from Playcentre, and the next steps.

Email dated 13th October from the Ministry:
​Kia ora Cynthia,
 
Thank you for your email about school aged children attending early learning services. Apologies for the delay in getting back to, we have been consulting with our Operational Policy team here at the Ministry.
 
In the Education and Training Act 2020, it is stated in section 10(1) that an early childhood education and care centre is one that is used regularly for education and care of 3 or more children (not being children of the persons providing the education and care or children enrolled at a school who are being provided with education or care before or after school) under the age of 6 years. This means that children (in relation to an early childhood service, means the child attending or participating in the service) must be under the age of 6 to be attending the service.
 
The legal framework does not provide for the simultaneous care of older children. However, it does acknowledge that other children may sometime be present. For example, see Schedule 2(5) of the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008 that sets out which children count for the purpose of determining adult:child ratios. Regulation 20A(2)(b) requires centre-based services to have exclusive use of the licensed premises. Therefore, home-schooled children are able to be present at an early learning service if they are in a separate space and supervised by adults who are not on session. This would be similar to providing out of school care at the same time that early learning is occurring.
 
Children and adults can attend an early learning service in situations that are of short duration and for a specific purpose, for example:

• dropping off or collecting a younger sibling with a parent or,
• attending an event at the centre with family or teachers (eg watching a performance).

 
When school aged children are present for a short duration, they must be supervised by an adult who is directly responsible for them and do not need to be counted in ratios. So if a child attends and their parent is an educator, then that educator can no longer be included in the ratio requirements.
 
Ngā mihi,

I responded:
Hi 
Thank you for your email. I have just one question – did the Ministry’s legal team review this as I requested? I understand legal services are different to the Operational Policy team, unless I am mistaken. 

To which they responded:
Kia ora Cynthia,

I sought feedback from our Operational Policy team here at the Ministry. They advised that this situation is quite clear and it would be unnecessary to go to the Legal team, so they provided guidance to me on the matter based on their interpretation. If you feel as though you would like further legal interpretation, then we suggest that you seek your own legal advice on this matter.

I also emailed Playcentre to ask if they would like copies of the correspondence with the Ministry about this matter, thinking they may be able to use it in their own discussions. They responded:

Kia ora Cynthia – thank you for your message via our website last week.
 
We are aware that this has been an ongoing issue for some members of our organisation. We are currently not in a position to contest the advice from the Ministry of Education but we would be happy to receive the information you refer to. 

I will be forwarding them copies. They did not elaborate on why they cannot contest the Ministry's advice.

Personally, I think there is reasonable grounds to conclude that the Ministry is interpreting law in accordance with it's own agenda in this matter, and not necessarily in accordance with the law itself. The most logical next step is to refer the matter to the Ombudsman, who handles complaints and investigates the administrative conduct of state sector agencies. There is no cost to do this, and I have today sent an email and copies of all correspondence to the Ombudsman.

Other alternatives would be for affected families to begin a petition, talk to their local MPs, or join together to consider pursuing a Judicial Review - which takes the matter to the High Court but incurs a $1350 filing fee plus legal costs. 

I will post the response from the Ombudsman in due course.

After the big overhaul of the NCEA system that has been conducted over the last couple of years and is now coming into force, I was recently informed that the Ministry is conducting a series of Teacher Only training days at local high schools. Home educators may attend - they need to contact the principal of their local high school in order to arrange this. Note that I expect you would need to make other arrangements for the care of your children during this time. 

The graphic below shows the dates for each region. 

For a PDF outline of what will be covered click HERE and for a more complete PowerPoint outline click HERE

Families who hold certificates of exemption for their children are paid a small "supervision allowance" by the Ministry of Education twice a year. The amount has not changed since it was introduced in 1989. There has always been divided opinions on whether we should ask for more money, and whether doing so would bring more scrutiny. Here I outline the background of the allowance, it's basis in law and policy, and suggest options for the future. 

In the late1980's the then-Labour government led by David Lange undertook a sweeping review of education (much like the one Chris Hipkins has led over the last 3 years). At that time, the Education Act 1964 was the law in force around education. A number of big changes came out of that review, among them Tomorrow's Schools which changed forever the landscape and approach of state education, along with forming the Ministry of Education and the Education Review Office, and creating the Education Act 1989 (after all, you can't make significant changes without the legislation to back it up).

As part of this process, Brian Picot led a taskforce to investigate education in NZ, and wrote a report of recommendations, which was published in 1988 entitled Adminstering for Excellence - more commonly known as the Picot Report. 

In the Picot Report, in respect of home education, was written the following:
"Each successive Education Act since 1877 has included the right of citizens to educate their own children, provided that a standard of education similar to that available in a state school is maintained. As part of our commitment to increased choice in the system, we wish that right to be continued and suggest that the procedures under which it is exercised be kept as straightforward as possible. We propose that the Review and Audit Agency [ultimately called ERO] be able to grant an exemption from enrolment and subsequent attendance. We also recommend that the children involved have the right of access to appropriate Correspondence School lessons. The parents of children studying at home should receive an allowance based on that currently given to parents of Correspondence School students: and they will - as now - have their programme and work checked by the Review and Audit Agency." (section 7.7.4)

Tomorrow's Schools, authored by David Lange, was the document written in response to the Picot Report, which formed the foundation of the new system and legislation. On home education, Tomorrow's Schools said:
"Home-Based Schooling (section 5.4)

• Parents will continue to be able to educate their children at home, provided that a standard of education similar to that available in an institution is maintained.
• Exemption from enrolment at school and subsequent attendance will be granted by the Review and Audit Agency.
• A standard charter for home-based schooling will be used as a basis for negotiations between the parent(s) who wish to educate their child at home, and the Review and Audit Agency. This charter will allow the agency to monitor the student's educational progress, and so ensure that it is regular and comparable to that provided by institutions. [NB: they did attempt this charter system, but it was dropped]
• Children being taught at home will have the right to enrol in Correspondence School courses. Their parent(s) will receive a home-based schooling allowance based on that currently given to the parents of Correspondence School students." 

As the reader will no doubt be aware, some of this translated into reality through the 1989 legislation, and some did not. Certificates of Exemption were to be granted by the newly-formed Ministry of Education, rather than ERO. While the government intended ERO to carry out regular reviews, legal ability to do so was not actually written into the legislation at that time, resulting (in part) in the practice being abandonded for a time a few years later (see THIS). Home educators were never given automatic right to enrol in Correspondence School courses (now Te Kura). Of most interest here, though, is the matter of the allowance being paid on the same basis of that which was paid to Correspondence School families.

Back in the 80's, families of correspondence school students had lobbied to be paid a supervision allowance, on the basis that they were doing part of the teacher's jobs by supervising their student's learning at home, and should therefore be paid for that. This was before my time in the home education world, but from what I'm told, they fought hard and it was eventually granted. To then have the government turn around and also grant it to homeschooling parents (who had never asked for it) was, to some of the correspondence parents, something of an insult. 

Be that as it may, the policy resulted in home educators being paid the following amounts for exempt students:

• first child $743
• second child $632
• third child $521
• subsequent children $372

Paid in two equal six-monthly installments, these amounts were the same as the correspondence school supervision allowance at the time. For home educators, these amounts have remained unchanged ever since. For correspondence (now Te Kura) families, there have been very slight increases. Today the Te Kura supervision allowance payments are:

• First child $760
• Second child $646
• Third child $533
• Fourth and subsequent children $380

All of this begs a couple of important questions:
1) If the home education supervision allowance is tied to the Te Kura supervision allowance, why has one changed and the other not?
2) The policy sets out on what basis the allowance is paid to Te Kura families. It is clearly linked to the parent's role in ensuring the student is completing work set by the school, keeping in regular touch with the school, and being available for meetings with teachers etc. In other words, the parents are being paid to support their children's learning by supporting the teachers who are providing the program. Much like the families originally argued - they are doing a part of the teacher's job, and this is being recognized. But the situation with home education is very different, so is the link/comparison appropriate?

I would also note, for clarity, that families with children enrolled full time in Te Kura under one of the free gateways are not considered to be home educating (under law), because their children are enrolled full time in a school (Te Kura is a registered school); they will receive the supervision allowance from Te Kura if they fulfil the criteria. Some families, however, have home education exemptions and choose to pay fees for Te Kura subjects for their 6-15yo students. These families ARE home educating; Te Kura is just a resource they have chosen to use for selected subjects, and eligible for the home educator's supervision allowance.

Ever since that time, the question has arisen from time to time whether we should collectively ask the Ministry of Education for an increase in the supervision allowance. Many folk would advise against doing so, for the following reasons (my paraphrase):

• We didn't ask for the allowance, they just gave it to us - we should be grateful
• The allowance is not actually written into law or policy; if we ask for more and they investigate, they might just decide to stop paying it all together
• If they give us more money, they could attach "strings" - these could be things like having to submit annual reports, routine ERO reviews, standardised curriculum or testing etc etc
• Home education is a choice - we chose this, so it's up to us to cover the costs, and not look to the government
• It's better to "fly under the radar" and not draw attention to ourselves

Let's take a closer look at these:
We didn't ask for it - maybe not, but someone decided it was appropriate to pay to home educators - ie parents who have chosen to educate their children at home but still pay taxes that pay for the school system - a token amount in recognition of the supervision they are providing to their children at home. We don't have to take it - they ask every six months whether you want the supervision allowance, and only pay it to you if you say yes. Just because we didn't personally ask for something, does that make it wrong to accept what is offered, or to suggest a revision of the amount if it seems inappropriate? Consider Working For Families tax credits. Did you or a group of families you know lobby for this? Do you receive it, possibly even count on it to make ends meet? I'm sure you are grateful it exists if you qualify for it and need it, and we certainly should be grateful for the supervision allowance. But that does not make it wrong or inappropriate to point out that it has not changed in over 30 years and needs looking at. We don't have to do this with WFF, because revising it is part of the government's annual budget and policies - some years it changes, some it does not, but clearly it has increased a great deal over the last 30 years. Family Support tax credits were introduced in 1986; then the maximum rates for Family
Support were $36 for the first child and $16 for subsequent children. Imagine if that had not changed since!

"Not written into law or policy"  - this is not correct. The Picot Report and Tomorrow's Schools both form part of government policy, and both recommended the payment of the allowance. While the 1989 Education Act did not explicitly lay out the payment of a supervision allowance to either home educators or correspondence school parents, it must be understood that a government department cannot pay out any of the public funds they adminster unless there is a law that grants them the power to do so. For correspondence families, the funding is part of the bulk funding to Te Kura, who in turn pay the families the allowance. For home educated families, I would posit that the section of the Act which makes this possible is this one - quoting from the now-in-force Education and Training Act 2020 (wording is very similar to the previous Act):
Section 556 Grants to educational bodies
(1) An educational body may, on conditions that the Minister thinks fit, be paid grants out of money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose.
(2) However, a grant may not be paid to a tertiary education provider or a workforce development council unless the Minister is satisfied that the payment is in the national interest.
(3) The Minister may determine the amount of, and the conditions that apply to, each grant.
(4) Before a grant is paid, the Minister may give the educational body written notice that the grant, or a part or parts of the grant (specified as a particular sum or as a proportion of the total grant), is not to be used except for purposes specified in the notice.
(5) If notice is given, the educational body must ensure that no part of the grant to which the notice relates is used for purposes other than those specified for it in the notice.
(6) Apart from this restriction, an educational body to which a grant is paid may apply the grant as it sees fit.
(7) In the financial year during which a grant was paid to an educational body, and during the next financial year,--
  (a) the Secretary may, by written notice, require the educational body to provide the Secretary with any financial report, or statistical or other information, relating to the educational body, within a time specified in the notice and in writing; and
  (b) the educational body must take all reasonable steps to comply with the notice.
(8) The Minister may, for the purposes of this section and section 557, recognise a body that provides any educational or developmental service or facility, including a tertiary education organisation, as an educational body.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 321

Notice that this gives the Ministry the right to give a grant of any appropriate amount, on conditions the Minister sees fit, to anyone providing "an educational service." So far, the Ministry has seen fit to give a grant of the amounts outlined above to families who are home educating. The "conditions" set are that you sign and return the six monthly declaration - if you do not, they will not pay it. (More on this and how it benefits the Ministry below).

In terms of being written into policy, the matter of the supervision allowance is also written into the Ministry's internal Home Education Policies and Procedures manual, and from a legal perspective, the fact that it has been paid for the last 30 years sets a significant precedent for it to be expected to continue.

If we ask for more, they could add more " strings" - As noted above, the law that permits the payment of the allowance also permits the Minister to set conditions. Thus far the only condition is the return of a signed declaration. Let's consider that for a moment:
As discussed HERE, since 2008 the government has not wanted to pay for routine reviews of home educators by ERO - it cost too much for too little return. The six monthly declarations are their way of continuing to be "satsified" that the child continues to be taught "as regularly and well as" - in other words, they take care of their need to show some sense of checking in with families by having families sign a six monthly declaration to this effect. BUT, the law does not require this declaration. They cannot revoke the exemption if you refuse to sign and return them. And if you don't, they would have to follow up another way, which would involve the far more costly process of paying staff and attendance services to investigate the family and whether they are still homeschooling, and consider whether an ERO review is needed, and if so, pay for it. Therefore, they use the declaration as the "carrot" to get you to sign and return the form. Ultimately this saves them money; in government-think this is cost-effective and value for money to them.

Now, if we ask for more, might they add more strings? Maybe. But again, they would be weighing up the cost. They already know that ERO reviews cost more than they returned. If they ask us to write annual reports on our children's progress, who is going to read them all? That's over 6,500 reports each year. If each one only took an hour to read and deal with (highly unlikely), that would require over 3 full time equivalent staff doing NOTHING but reading reports all day every day, year round to get through them all. For what? What would that cost? I cannot see it being considered cost effective either. (By the way, the Ministry did think this was a good idea once upon a time. They abandoned it soon after). Any time staff at the Ministry come up with an idea they want to put into action, they have to go through a bunch of internal wrangling, including applying for funding. Each department has limited funding they can ask for. A lot of ideas never make it even to the point of asking, because they have higher priority items to pursue and try and get money for, so they simply drop those of lesser priority.

So what strings might they realistically attach? If some are proposed, bear in mind that there would be room for discussion and negotiation (or outright pushing back) by the community, AND that they can only attach those strings to a payment which you would have the right to refuse if you did not like the conditions. Refusing payment does not in any way, under law at present, affect your exemption itself.

So shouldn't the home education community also consider risk vs reward? i.e. IF we ask for more, we may risk further conditions being attached, but on the other hand we could gain an increased amount which may not actually have any additional conditions at all - or at least none we can't live with. If we say/do nothing, then the status quo remains, and we're stuck with the same unchanged amount. Not just us, but those who come after us also. Worth thinking about!

Our choice - our cost: Yes, home education is a choice, but for some, not in the freest sense. I have significant numbers of families come to me each year, or see them comment in the forums, who are homeschooling because they felt they had no choice - the schools could not or would not provide for their children's needs, or keep their children safe, or whatever, and in some cases when they've asked for support they have been effectively told by the Ministry that they should just home educate their children. That's great for the Ministry - they no longer have to provide funds for that child's education and additional support, making it "the parent's problem." Yes, even in such cases parents could still choose NOT to home educate, but most of them are loving parents who want what's best for their children above all, so they take the plunge even if it is not what they want to do, expected to do, or can afford to do. Home education does cost money. How much varies a lot. But to do it well WILL cost. Yes, the children and their needs are the parent's responsibility anyway, and yes, going to school is not "free" either. My point is, though, that the argument that we should not ask for more simply because we chose to do this lacks real merit. Remember, if you don't want the money, you don't have to accept it. For some families, though, it is so, so needed.

We shouldn't draw attention to ourselves: If anyone believes we are invisible, they are mistaken. Especially now, with COVID, home education has been very much in the limelight. But that aside, the Ministry knows we're here - they deal with us on a regular basis. If we "make some fuss" over the allowance, will that make us more visible, and thus targets for additional scrutiny and demands? Maybe - no one can guarantee one way or the other that would not happen, least of all me. On the one hand I fully expect that home education will become more restricted in years to come, but I think that will happen no matter what we do or don't do. And yet, we've been saying that for the past 30 years - and so far successive governments have for the most part had bigger fish to fry. They will not focus their time, policies and funds in any significant way on such a small group of people relative to the overall population. Changes to our freedom to home educate are far more likely to result from societies/governments overall shift in a more statist direction, than from any small action by home educators ourselves, especially over a little money. Meanwhile, we should enjoy our right and freedom to home educate as much as possible - of course - but that does not mean we can't also present our needs, discuss our rights, and make a good case for change that benefits us in the meantime. I think ignoring the latter out of fear of losing the former is somewhat misplaced. Of course, we should do so in a respectful, considered, and articulate fashion - not act like rabid maniacs; that might indeed draw unwelcome attention!

​The "supervision allowance" is really only called that because of the link with the correspondence supervision allowance. However you view it and whatever it is called, these are funds that you, the home educator, are free to do with as you wish. You do not have to spend it on homeschool resources (though the majority of families do). If you want to spend it on something different, or save it, that is up to you.

In 2014-2015 the Ministry conducted a review of home education which included consultation with the home education sector through meetings and opportunities to complete surveys/provide feedback on what home educators saw as needing changing or addressing. In March 2015 they issued a report summarizing the findings, and stating the actions they agreed to take. You can read all about the review and the report here: ​parents.education.govt.nz/primary-school/schooling-in-nz/home-education/home-education-review/. 
​
Their summary of the feedback they had received regarding funding is as follows:
"There was consensus amongst home educators that the amount of funding paid to home educators is too low. They noted that funding has not been reviewed or increased in at least 15 years and is not inflation adjusted. Respondents were of the view that current funding is not enough for home educators to purchase the resources they need. A number of respondents considered there were significant inequities compared to students in schools who are funded at higher rates than home educated students. Respondents also considered that funding should not decrease for consecutive children who are home educated. A few respondents said they would like funding to start at age five and continue until the child finished their education (eg up to age 18 if they can prove they are gaining qualifications). A few respondents said they would like extra funding for activities that require specialist teachers, such as music lessons." (page 14 of report)

In the Next Steps section of the report, where the Ministry responded to this feedback with statements about what actions, if any, they would take, they said in response to the request to look at additional funding that "MoE will explore options for increasing funding in the 2016/17 budget round."

It didn't happen by then (many of the next steps were delayed) but NCHENZ, in a subsequent meeting with the Ministry's national office, followed up on this (along with other agreed next steps) and the Ministry promised to make sure that this was looked into. The outcome of this when they reported back on the matter was that they had a number of matters requiring funding, and could only ask for so much, and considered this a low priority compared to other matters, so had not even presented it to more senior staff in the funding round. Nothing has been done about it since. 

Because this is how it works internally, if we as a home education community ever do decide to pursue a request for additional funding, I believe we would need the support of an MP or similar person who can advocate for additional funding at a level outside of internal Ministry of Education processes.

As discussed, the home education supervision allowance was founded on a comparison with correspondence school parents. That perspective, though, is fundamentally flawed. Correspondence school families have their children's education provided, including teachers, resources and ongoing support. They can access STAR and Gateway courses which are funded by Te Kura, along with other resources such as funding for devices, internet etc. The supervision allowance is in recognition of their time spent supervising the children, and is entirely in addition to the taxpayer funded education package they receive. 

Home Educators, however, pay for all resources out of their own pockets. They do not have access to teacher guidance or support unless they pay for it (or have willing friends/family members). Their children cannot get funding for STAR or Gateway courses, or for internet, devices or most other things. Meanwhile the family still pays the same taxes as everyone else, funding the state education system.

In my view, there is no reasonable comparison between the two groups of families, other than that their children happen to be learning in their own homes.

A far more reasonable comparison would be between home educators and private schools. Private schools are an optional choice that parents have made, usually with the intention that their children will receive a superior education, or better access to particular courses or options, or because they in some way meet the needs or preferences of their children or family better than state schools available. Parents who choose this option pay significant fees, because private schools do not receive the same government funding that state schools do - they are expected to pay for teachers salaries, buildings, resources, STAR and Gateway etc mostly out of funds they raise from the fees they charge. They do, however, receive some funding. The amount is on a per-student basis. It does not go down because there are more than X number of kids in the school. There is some additional allowance for new entrants, who are recognised as having higher costs than established students; otherwise the funding is at a flat rate for primary students and for secondary students in two groups. The total pool of funds, however, for private schools is fixed (with periodic revisions); schools get a share of the pool based on the number of enrolled students. In rough figures, the amounts are around $1000 for Year 1-8 students, $1300 for Year 9-10 students, and $2000 for Year 11-13 students.

I think a good argument could be made for funding home educators on a similar basis to private schools. It should not be directly linked to private school funding (because sometimes governments target this and consider dropping it all together). It's more about pointing out the similarities in independent responsibility for students' education and resources, with responsibility to continue ensuring "as regularly and well", and some available funding that the schools can use at their discretion (appropriately of course). Like the funding for home educators, the wording of the Act says that the Minister has the right to require certain reporting etc from private schools, but I'm told that they are not currently required to write reports or anything similar.

The Ministry likes to repeatedly state how dedicated they are to ensuring quality education for ALL students (including home educated ones). Yet home educated students do not have equal access  - our students cannot access training programs, secondary-tertiary programs or vocational pathways like kids in state high schools can. We cannot access funded STAR or Gateway courses - we can access these if we pay for them. Our students cannot get early leaving exemptions to take part in Youth Guarantees programs on the same basis as other 15yo students. Again, our students can do these courses if we pay for them. (Still funded over 16). Our students cannot begin NCEA Level 1 courses at 15. The point is, our students do not have equality of access. 

Some would argue that they should have access to the same funding for these resources as state educated kids That would be tricky for a number of reasons, not least of all administration. A far easier way to address this inequality would be to increase the supervision allowance, so parents had additional funds available and could pay for such courses for their students if appropriate.

The supervision allowance has never been increased since it was introduced over 30 years ago. Without action by the home education sector to lobby for change, it's unlikely to ever change. What other govt funding do you know of that is never adjusted at least for inflation?

If we ask for more, yes, there is some risk of the Ministry wanting "something in return" - but realistically anything they ask for will cost THEM in resources to administer it. I consider the risk fairly small, but it should be up to the home education community whether they want to pursue this.

For those of us who represent sections of the home education community, such as myself in the role of Government Liaison for NCHENZ, our roles rightly require that we act in accordance with the overall desires of the communities we represent. NCHENZ has been reluctant to pursue additional funding (other than following up on the Ministry's own stated intention as described above) because we have not had the mandate of NCHENZ membership to do so.

In the interests of full disclosure, since I no longer home educate my own children (they're all grown), any outcome of pursuing a revision of funding will have no direct effect on me and my family (other than for my likely soon-to-be-home-educated grandchildren). This makes me very conscious of not pursuing something as significant as this just because I think it is the right and sensible thing to do, without having the majority support of the NCHENZ community to do so.

Seeing change come about would need many voices with clear leadership and the enlisting of support from a suitable MP or similar. 

I encourage you to weigh up the situation for yourself, and to think also not just of your own family, but of others who may be in a more difficult financial position, and those who will come after you. 

The upcoming NCHENZ survey will ask you about what you think about pursuing additional funding. Please cast your vote so we know where the community stands. If you are not yet a member of NCHENZ, you can join here (it's free): www.nchenz.org.nz/online-form-for-individual-membership/. Only those who are home educating (with exemptions) or intending to home educate, or have previously held exemptions for at least 4 years, are able to join NCHENZ (but even without membership you can find lots of great info and resources on the website).

I posted a copy of the letter I sent the Ministry on behalf of parents who are affected by the Ministry recently "clarifying" their position that exempt children cannot be present at Playcentre (or other ECE) with their parents. This is the reply I recieved from a Ministry Senior Advisor. My subsequent email to him is below. 

Kia ora Cynthia,
 
Thank you for your email about children enrolled in school attending early learning services.
 
We share your views about the importance of parent and whānau involvement in parent-led early learning services. Parent-led services provide parents and whānau with the opportunity to learn more about parenting, develop social and community networks and build greater confidence, as well as lead the education and care of their children.
 
We have not changed our stance on children enrolled in school, or those participating in home education, not being able to attend early learning services. The recent change to our website was not a change in policy but rather, clarification to make it clear that children participating in home education are also not able to attend early learning services.
 
Children enrolled in school/home education
 
Early learning services are set up to provide education and care to pre-school children and operate with a set of rules to ensure the specific needs of younger children are met. As you will know, playcentre needs to meet the same requirements as other early childhood education centres.
 
One of the requirements is that the premises and resources are kept for the exclusive use of children participating in the early learning programme. This is about making sure the environment is kept safe for young children, that they have space to explore and that their learning opportunities are not impacted by older children, who generally operate at a different pace and on a different scale to infants and younger children. This means that children enrolled in school, or those participating in home education, cannot regularly join in the activities offered at an early learning service during licensed hours.
 
I understand that this won’t be the answer you are looking for. However, the legislation which dictates how early learning services operate, does not allow for children enrolled in school, or those participating in home education, to attend early learning services, aside from certain exemptions.
 
Ngā mihi,

My reply sent today:

Thank you for your email, and for clarifying that this is not a recent change but rather clarification on the website.
 
I have read all of the relevant legislation and policy documents that I am aware of in regards to ECE in a setting such as Playcentre in their entirety – please let me know if there are any I have missed. My understanding is that the regulatory framework consists of 3 guiding documents, namely:

• The Education and Training Act 2020
• Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008
• The Ministry’s document titled “Licensing Criteria for Early Childhood Education & Care Services 2008 and Early Childhood Education Curriculum Framework”(as amended May 2016)

I think the key issue here is the use of the word “attend” – there needs to be clarity around context and whether it means “be enrolled in” or “be present at;” obviously there is overlap in the sense that one anticipates that children who are enrolled in the ECE will also be present there, however one does not need to be enrolled in something to be present, necessarily. For example, a parent might attend a high school special assembly to witness their enrolled student’s participation in it, accompanied by their pre-schooler. Both the high school student and the preschooler (as well as their parent) “attended” the assembly at school, but only one was enrolled; the others were simply present.
 
In reviewing the regulatory framework, I note that there is clear guidelines on who can be enrolled in an ECE – ie, 0-6 year olds, excluding 5 year olds who are enrolled in school and not under a transition plan. However, there is nothing which states who can be present (or not) at an ECE in regards to families of the enrolled children, with the exception of excluding parents who are a danger to the children.
 
On the contrary, parents have right of entry to an ECE where their child is enrolled/present (other than the exception noted), and there are a number of places in the regulations where specific allowance is made for the possibility that non-enrolled students may be present in the care of their parents. I pointed out a couple of them in my last email. Here’s another:
 
Schedule 2 of the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008 sets out the adult-to-child ratios for early childhood education and care centres. Schedule 3 sets out the service sizes for the same. Notable point in the definitions at the end of each Schedule:
 
“In the case of a centre...., every child present (including the child of the service provider or person responsible or supervisor or staff member) of any age also counts as a child.” (Emphasis mine)

The regulations specifically allow for the fact that other children, particularly the children of responsible adults helping run the service, may also be present (not enrolled), and that they may be of “any age.”

One of the understandings behind this is simply this: parents are responsible for the supervision of their children who are not old enough to be left on their own. If those children are not enrolled in school (and thus attending and supervised there), then they are likely to be with the parents who may be present at the centre – this applies to both children who are pre-school age and not enrolled in the centre, and those who are 6 or over and not required to attend school during that time.  The writing of the Acts concerned allows for that. There is no legislation or regulation that says that they cannot be with the parents who are responsible for them. To exclude those children from being present at appropriate times is to also exclude their parents. and by extension in the case of Playcentre to exclude their enrolled siblings, as Playcentre does not provide a drop-and-go care service.

No one is arguing about the fact that the ECE centre is intended to be for the use of the enrolled preschoolers, and that they should be the focus of the program, resources etc, and their learning and engagement should not be interfered with by older children who may be present. However, this does not mean that legally other children may not be present, when they are being supervised by their own parents or caregivers, whose responsibility it would be to also ensure those older children do not adversely effect the experience or learning of the enrolled children. Bear in mind that most older children will not be able to be present because they are required to be attending school at that time; we’re talking about a very small number of children scattered across the country – Playcentres would not be overrun with older children! For those families, though, this is hugely important.

You stated in your email that “the legislation which dictates how early learning services operate, does not allow for children enrolled in school, or those participating in home education, to attend early learning services, aside from certain exemptions”  - please point out which part of the legislation prevents children in the care of their parents from being present at an ECE in which their sibling is enrolled, unless due to the fact that they are required to attend school at that time? I cannot find any such regulations.

Rather, this would appear to be a case of the Ministry making decisions which are in line with their own thinking, but are extra-legal; not governed or sanctioned by law. This is overreach and would, I believe, not stand up to judicial review (unless, of course, I have missed a pertinent regulation somewhere).

I’d like to request, please, that the Ministry have their legal team review this situation more thoroughly, taking into account the matters I have raised in my emails.

Please let me know the outcome.

​Kind regards
Cynthia Hancox
Government Liaison: National Council of Home Educators of NZ (NCHENZ)

In 2017, a law change was passed requiring enrolled 5yos to attend school. This caused a lot of confusion about parent's ability to withdraw 5 yo children from school. I outlined the facts HERE. 

Now that the Education and Training Act 2020 has come into force this July, I'm writing this updated version of the situation with links to the new legislation.

The purpose of this post is to clarify what the attendance requirement for 5 year olds do and don’t mean. 

​

1. The age at which a child MUST be enrolled in a registered school under law remains unchanged at 6 years old. Section 35 of the Education and Training Act 2020 says that a domestic student must be enrolled in and attending a registered school from their 6th to their 16th birthdays.
2. As previously, students MAY be enrolled in a school from their 5th birthday. It is against the law to enrol a child younger than 5 in a registered school. (s62). This is still the parent’s choice. They do not HAVE to enrol their child at any time prior to the 6th birthday.
3. The 2017 change, continuing in the new Act, is that once a child is enrolled in a school they are required to attend, even if they are under the age of 6. These attendance requirements are covered by Section 36 of the 2020 Act. This means that parents whose 5yo children are enrolled in a school are subject to the same requirements to send them each day as the parents of an older student. The only exception is if a transition plan is in place to ease them into full time attendance.
4. HOWEVER, there is nothing in any part of the Act that prevents a parent from UN-enrolling their child (permanently removing) them from a school (for any reason). If the child is less than 6, a parent can still unenroll their child and begin home educating them immediately, so long as by the time they turn 6 they have obtained an exemption (or enrolled them in a school).
5. A parent or guardian can apply for an exemption to home educate their child, on the basis that the child is to be “taught at least as regularly and well as in a registered school.” This long-term exemption from the requirements of Section 35 is covered by Section 38 of the Education and Training Act. Because it specifically refers to “exempt…from the requirements of Section 35” which only covers 6-16 year olds, home education exemptions continue to be applicable only to students from the age of 6. (No change under the new Act). As per agreed Ministry policy, parents can apply for an exemption any time after the 5th birthday, and have the application processed and the exemption granted, but the exemption comes into force from the 6th birthday, as prior to that there is nothing to be exempt from.

A related matter - returning to ECE:
A related matter I get asked about from time to time is "If my child has been enrolled in school at 5, and then I withdrew them, can they be re-enrolled in an ECE, and recieve the funding?" The answer is yes, they can. Any child under 6 who is not enrolled in a school can be enrolled in an ECE, and if they meet the other eligibility critieria, recieve the 20 hours-per-week funding. 

A family who experienced difficulty around this asked for my support. The result was an email from the ECE team at the Ministry that confirmed:
"If a child under the age of 6 has recently enrolled in school, then subsequently un-enrols from school in order to re-enrol in an early learning service for an ongoing period (for example because the parents have decided that the child is not ready to transition to school), then they are eligible for any early childhood funding available.  Children are not able to access early childhood funding if they are enrolled in school on an ongoing basis, eg they cannot enrol in an early childhood service in the school holidays."

​Legislation and Links:
The current Education and Training Act 2020 can be viewed online here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0038/latest/LMS170676.html

My step-by-step guide to getting a home education exemption can be found HERE.

The Ministry of Education's information about home education exemptions can be found HERE.

Section 58 of the Ministry's 2018 internal Home Education Policy and Procedures Manual confirms that 5yos may withdrawn from school at any time and not re-enrolled in a school until they turn 6

The Ministry publishes a document for schools and BOTs called Attendance Matters. The current version is out of date on a number of points, but I include it here to point out that it states under the National Administration Guidelines (NAGs) on Page 15 that "a parent is free to withdraw their 5 year old at any time and not re-enrol them in another school until they are 6"

Quite recently, the Ministry made an arbitrary decision that exempt students could not be present at Playcentre sessions with their parent/s and siblings. Playcentre NZ passed this information on to families, causing considerable upset. I was asked to write a letter to the Ministry on behalf of families. Here is the content of that letter, which outlines the issues (see their reply and my follow up email HERE):

Dear Ministry of Education,
I’m writing concerning a recent Ministry determination that children over the age of 6 with homeschooling exemptions cannot be present at Playcentre sessions. This position causes a number of problems which the Ministry may not have taken into consideration, resulting in families being discriminated against and their ECE-aged children excluded.

Playcentres are in their very nature and philosophy family-centric, and this is a big part of the reason that families choose a Playcentre as the ECE for their child. Quoting from the Playcentre website description of what Playcentre is:
  “Playcentre is your village.  See children delight in their surroundings - play with them, alongside them, encourage them to interact with others while you meet other parents and educators.
  Parents are the first educators of children, and Playcentres around New Zealand foster the involvement of whānau through early childhood education.
  As a family, and as a community, you’ll build your own village with Playcentre: making life-long friends along the way.”

Playcentres are run by parents, and rely on parents who gain the required qualifications in order to run sessions. It is often those parents who have a longer involvement with Playcentre through having several successive children attend who are particularly invested in gaining those qualifications and helping to run the Playcentre.

It has been common over the years for parents with both ECE-aged children and older, home educated children to bring the older children with them to sessions if they do not have alternative care available at those times. Individual Playcentres took the responsibility to have in place policies and processes that ensured that the needs of the enrolled Playcentre children remained paramount, and that any older children present did not detract from that. Usually, though, the opposite is true – older children bring benefits to the centre and enrolled children, such as by modelling skills and good behaviours, by helping out in practical ways, or by reading or playing with the younger children. Of course, some of the older children would simply be present but working on their own schoolwork etc in an out-of-the-way spot.

Several parents have sent me letters to include, and they are attached. I have also heard from a number of other families through online group discussions etc. Here I will summarise some of the main points made by these and other parents whose families have been affected by this situation:

​Playcentre the only suitable ECE option: For some families, their younger children’s early childhood needs cannot be met elsewhere, either because of their geographical distance from other ECE options, or because their child’s specific needs and/or family philosophy make any other options unsuitable.

Parents must attend with their children, and older children cannot be left unsupervised: For many families, the main reason their older children attend the sessions with them is that there are no other suitable options for their care and supervision during those times – and of course these kids cannot be left on their own at home. If they cannot be brought to the Playcentre with their sibling/s, then this means that the younger sibling must be withdrawn from the Playcentre also, missing out on ECE all together, which surely flies in the face of Ministry and government policy which encourages engagement in ECE for all NZ children of that age.

​Parent’s being forced to choose between their children: Parents put in this position feel like they are being forced to choose one child’s needs over the other’s, which is unfair. These are caring, committed parents who want to see ALL their children thrive and be provided with good opportunities; with one stroke the Ministry has put them in a very difficult position.

Putting the viability of Playcentres themselves at risk: If such families are forced to withdraw from Playcentre, there is significant risk that many Playcentres will be unable to run their sessions, and some may have to close, because they will no longer have parents with the required qualifications present to run them. Therefore, not only their own children, but also other local children will miss out.

Harming the wellbeing of families and communities: As is clear from the ethos of Playcentre as quoted above, the sessions are not just about the children either – they are of benefit to the whole family through encouraging relationships between the children AND between the parents and by extension their families. For a lot of young parents, their local playcentres provide the best opportunities for them to find support and make connections within their communities, and to make friends with other parents with whom they have things in common. The Ministry’s decision puts all of this at risk, thus potentially affecting not only the early childhood education of the enrolled children, but the overall well-being of their families and communities. This is particularly magnified in small or rural communities.

The Education and Training Act 2020 defines an Early Childhood Education and Care Centre as:
“means premises that are used regularly for the education or care of 3 or more children (not being children of the persons providing the education or care or children enrolled at a school who are being provided with education or care before or after school) under the age of 6 years by day (or part of a day) but not for any continuous period of more than 7 days”

This definition excludes the children of the persons providing care and education to the enrolled children from being counted in the number of children being provided for, but it does NOT exclude them from being present. In fact, it actually allows for the very possibility that they MIGHT be present, by excluding them in the definition as counting towards the number being cared for.

Likewise, if one looks at Section 19 of the Act which outlines the requirements for a licensed home-based education and care service, it discusses how many children may be enrolled in the service as well as how many other children may also be present who are under 13 and not enrolled in school. (Notably, in those circumstances it allows for ONE person to be providing for the education and care of up to 4 enrolled preschool children while also having the care of 2 or so additional children up to age 13 who are not enrolled in school, yet the Ministry would apparently argue that parents at a Playcentre where there are a number of adults present could not do the same.)

These sections show that there is a clear understanding within the Act that in some circumstances, persons involved in providing the care and education of enrolled ECE children may also have other children of their own present during sessions.

Exempt children who are present at Playcentre with their parent/s and siblings also benefit from the opportunities presented, which help them to develop in the key competencies, particularly those of relating to others, and participating and contributing.

Their own education is not being neglected, as playcentre sessions are for limited hours each week, during which students are either engaged as discussed above, or quietly working on their own work. Meanwhile, there are plenty of hours in the week for their parents to use to ensure that the exempt student’s own work is completed and all needed teaching is provided.

In conclusion: The Ministry’s decision that over 6 yo exempt students cannot be present at Playcentre with their families means that some children and their parents will be unable to have the opportunity to participate in ECE and/or the Playcentre community, to the detriment not just of themselves but of the whole family and wider community. It also means some Playcentres will be unable to run sessions or may be forced to close due to lack of suitable qualified people to run them. And it puts parents in the terrible position of being forced to choose between their children.

On the other hand, there is nothing in the law that actual prevents such children from being allowed to be present, and there is absolutely no harm being done to the education of the enrolled children under these circumstances – rather their experience and learning is often enhanced; any rare individual issues can be handled suitably on a case-by-case basis by the affected Playcentre through their own policies and processes.

We therefore ask the Ministry to urgently reconsider their position on this matter.

Yours faithfully
Cynthia Hancox
Government Liaison: National Council of Home Educators of NZ (NCHENZ)

Recently new home educator Abbey Reeve and myself were interviewed by TV3's The Project. 

Want some new ideas and encouragement? Here's an excellent opportunity to take part in a very inexpensive global conference, accessible from home, and with the ability to watch/listen at a time that suits you. I'm one of the speakers. 

Want to live a courageous life driven by the power of the Holy Spirit as you homeschool? 
Want to restore your children's hearts to Jesus? 
Want to intentionally create success for the next generation?
 
Global Christian Homeschool Conference
Virtual Speakers Pouring their Wisdom
August 17-21, 2020, 5 Days
Cost is only $20* – No, Really! (*Price in USD)
Registration begins Aug 10, 2020
 
Register HERE (This is my affiliate link; please use if it you'd like to support me)
 
From the host, Crissi Allen:
What makes this Homeschool Conference unique? God downloaded to me the idea of encouraging my  brothers and sisters in Christ throughout the global homeschooling community. I chose mature Christian women and men who want to speak words of life into you, the homeschooling parent, so that you can stay home and mentor your children!
 
This year’s themes include:

1. The ABC’s of Homeschool, Diligent Prep for College,
2. Chats with Real Parents, Health & Wellness for Parents & Students
3. Courageous Living Teen Track, Unique Special Needs & Gifted Children,
4. Staying Power Marriage & Parenting,
5. Amazing Working Moms & Entrepreneurs

 
Features include:

• Passionate speakers that pour out words of life into homeschool parents
• Edifying Facebook community group where homeschool parents can interact with speakers, vendors, and homeschooling parents from around the world.
• Online “vendor hall” for attendees (will be photo albums in FB group).
• Giveaways during the “conference” week for attendees.
• Low ticket prices
• Unlimited, lifetime access to the conference (videos and handouts).

 
Something unique that we’ll be doing this year are to have panels of speakers talk about their unique situations.  Tune in to the following on our Facebook Community Page:

1. Homeschooling in Different Countries - Monday
2. Homeschooling as Single Parent - Monday
3. Homeschooling Dads who Homeschool - Tuesday
4. Hot House Transplants, Faith intact and Impacting the World - Wed
5. Real Talk with Homeschooling Teens - Wed
6. How to Create Peace in a Chaotic World - Thurs
7. Senior Entrepreneurs who are Still Blessing the Homeschool World - Fri

 
The Scripture focus this year is 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24.  “23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass.
 
Click here if you want to register with my affiliate link: https://heart-academy1.teachable.com/courses/global-christian-homeschool-conference?affcode=700268_gjzcdf-h

Note: when you sign up, you will get access to both the Facebook group and the Teachable vault. Some talks are pre-recorded and are accessible in the vault straight away. Others are being recorded live and are accessible in the Facebook group, then will be uploaded to the vault at the end of the week. 

The current Ministry of Education application forms (published 2016) are designed to be used for a single, individual child. This is because at the time of publishing, the Ministry felt strongly that "each child must have an individual application." However, since that time through ongoing meetings and conversations with the Ministry, they have come to see the sense in being able to include more than one child in a single application in some circumstances. As a result, they have promised updated forms that allow for the inclusion of information on more than one child in a single form, but that hasn't happened yet.

Meanwhile, keep the following in mind:

• You do not have to use their forms for your full application. It is, however, best to use Section One of their forms - that is the part that asks about name, date of birth, parents details etc etc, and includes an important declaration. It's a waste of effort to replicate this section elsewhere, and all the info it asks for MUST be included. Since on the current forms this is only set up for one child, then I recommend you complete one copy of Section One (it's only 3 pages and can be filled in on the computer and saved) for each child. 
• For the rest of the application, use your own document, such as one written in Word or Google Docs and then converted to pdf before sending to the Ministry. My exemption guide pack contains a template in Word. (This advice applies whether you're applying for 1 or more children)
• When writing in your own document, you may include multiple children if it sensible to do so, but bear the below advice in mind.
• If you want to use the Ministry's application forms for the full application (Sections 1-4), you will have to do them individually until the new forms come out.

If you are writing exemption applications for 2 (or more) children who are very close in age and/or in stage of learning - eg twins, or often children 1-2 years apart in age, or where one is behind or advanced, bringing them closer in level, or in some cases where the program is very multi-child, such as unit studies based - then it often makes a great deal of sense to combine their information in one application. Otherwise you might be essentially supplying two almost identical sets of documents, with just the name changed. If you feel like that's you, or close, then yes, write them in one document if you like. 

Note, however, that is is absolutely ESSENTIAL that if you choose to do this, that you show sufficient and suitable information that demonstrates that you are taking into account each child's particular needs, which might include areas of strength or weakness, particular learning needs, next steps in learning, or individual preferences in things like sports, music etc etc.

Here are some examples of applications I would write as one, and the ways I would personalise them:

• Twins working at essentially the same level. If their program of learning is identical (and it may well be) I'd make a particular effort to include info on what each one enjoys or wants to focus on, or needs to improve in. Eg Jack might want to learn to play the drums and take part in rugby. John might play the guitar and prefers soccer. Or Jill might love to write stories and needs to develop her writing-reviewing-editing process while Jane has strong ideas and would enjoy the challenge of writing succinct, persuasive letters to the Editor. Anything relevant where you can include some personalisation will benefit your application.
• Two children close in age, working at the same level in literacy but a year apart in math. I would include the different math program/topics for each child, but much of the rest would be the same. Again, I would add personal interests, individual goals etc whereever applicable. 
• Multiple children where the family is using a strongly unit study approach with all children working on the same topics together. This one is a bit trickier to do all in one, but I would outline each subject content, then show how it will be tailored to each child - for example in literacy and numeracy you would set tasks and have specific goals and next steps for each child according to their age/stage/ability. Likewise in Science and Social Studies while they may study the same topics, they would apply that learning in different ways - an older child writing an essay after doing research, for example, while a young one might draw pictures and add captions with parental help, and meanwhile the middle child is expected to write a short report or complete some worksheets or whatever.

Note: No matter how you format your applications, you must have different topic plans for each child (even if you are planning to have them all take part in each topic). So if it's all in one document, have Topic Plan 1, Topic Plan 2 etc, each centred around a different child.

For the last few years, I have written or supported families writing quite a number of multi-child single applications through all regions of the country. Most have been twins or children just 1-2 years apart working at the same level. In only one case I know of, did the Ministry turn around and insist they needed completely separate documents for each child (it happened to be twins). So the parent changed the name/s in the document and printed two copies. I hope that that office later realised it was a bit silly. If someone strikes this, I would be happy to discuss the situation and provide support if needed. 

The reality is that a lot of the time it's actually EASIER to write the applications separately. That doesn't mean it's double or triple or whatever the work - you write one, then use it as as template for the others, saving a lot of time. It's ok to have a lot of similar or same content in applications for different children - that is normal - so long as their individual needs are covered where applicable. 

​But by doing them individually, it can be much easier to just focus on the one child at a time and what their individual program looks like. Unless your children are very close in age/ability and are therefore doing essentially the same program as discussed above, it makes more sense to write them up individually. If you're trying to cram a lot of different info about multiple children into one document, it could become very long and potentially confusing.

After you've written the first application, just save an extra copy, use the Replace function to change the name throughout, and then go through and edit the parts that need modifying for the next child - likely to be primarily English and Math, then Science and Social Studies depending on your planned approach, and the rest is most likely just about individual interests where they apply. You also must have a different Topic Plan for each child, regardless of the format of your applications.