As at 1st July 2020, there were 7,192 (exempt) homeschooled students from 4,003 families*. This represents 0.9% of total school enrolments. Out of the 7,192 home educated students, 65.0% were aged 12 or under, 70.2% had been homeschooled for less than 5 years, and only 4.2% had been homeschooled for 10 years or more. 

By comparison, as of 1st July 2019 there were 6,573 homeschooled children from 3,597 families, representing 0.8% of the total primary/secondary student population. 

We know that the COVID situation of 2020 has driven an increased interest in homeschooling, but the above statistics will not fully reflect that, as many families made a decision to pursue an exemption after the first lockdowns ended in around May, and their applications would not have necessarily been processed before the end of June, the cut off for the 2020 statistical data. It won't be until late 2021 when the next set of data is published that we get a clearer picture. However, we do know this is so far the greatest number, and proportion of overall students, being home educated since the data began being recorded in 1998. 

Lots of data and statistics on home education can be found at Education Counts HERE. There is also much on the website that may be of interest to some related to school data, spending etc.

* This year for the first time the statisticians did not publish the number of families on the website; I contacted them and asked, and requested they revert to including it in the future, as this figure is important for various reasons, including planning and resourcing. 

Ask about how often exemption applications are declined on social media, and you may be told "almost never." Let's take a look at the actual facts and statistics around this, as well as on what basis the Ministry can decline an exemption application, and what your options are if your application is declined. 

So how often ARE exemption applications declined? Back in 2017, I, in my role with NCHENZ, asked the Ministry of Education for detailed information around outcomes of exemption applications for 2010-2017. The data was extracted in Oct 2017 and provided in a report, so the 2017 information was incomplete. However, there was a great deal of useful data provided. Here's some of the most important data for this discussion:

Lapsed: A lapsed application is one where the Ministry has asked for additional information, and the parents have not responded within the permitted time frame. As they do not have sufficient info to be satisfied that the application meets the criteria, it is listed as lapsed, and a letter is sent out effectively declining the application. I've listed these stats separately to the other declined ones as it makes the overall data clearer. 

Withdrawn:  These are applications where the parents have decided not to proceed. This could be for any number of reasons - they simply changed their minds about homeschooling, the Ministry offered a suitable alternative such as Te Kura to which the parents agreed, the family moved overseas, or after being asked for more information they chose to withdraw etc.

Declined: These are applications which were actually declined (refused) by the Ministry. There are a limited number of reasons why this can occur, and if it does, parents have some options as to how to proceed, both of which I'll discuss in more detail below.

Important totals: If you add up the total number of declined applications over the above period and compare it to the total applications received, one sees that 2% of applications were declined, or an average of 1 in 50. It's notable, however, that the number of applications declined year on year decreased fairly steadily over those years, for a number of reasons. If we take the complete years of 2015-2016, when 14 applications were declined each year, we find that 1% were declined, or 1 in 100 applications.

Note: I am planning to ask the Ministry for updated data for the last few years, though it may be some time before this is available.

Not meeting the application criteria sufficiently to satisfy the Ministry: The law says that the Ministry may grant an exemption application "If, on the application of the parent, they are satisfied that the child is to be taught at least as regularly and well as in a registered school." While "as regularly and well" is not further defined in law, the exemption application contains a series of questions or sections which must be completed to provide the Ministry with sufficient information on which to judge whether the proposed program will meet this criteria.

If an application does not contain sufficient information, then the Ministry staff member processing the application is required to contact the parents and let them know what areas of the application they need further information in, and the parents have up to 4 weeks to provide this. If they do not, the application lapses. If they do, then their application is further assessed with the additional information taken into consideration.

If the application, with additional information, still does not satisfactorily meet the criteria, then the Ministry may decline the application. (Some offices may provide another opportunity by asking some more questions, but this is not required, except where the application has proceeded to peer review, and the peer reviewer is asking for details the initial staff member did not pick up on). 

Of all applications declined from 2010-2017, 74% were declined because the application was not satisfactory in regards to curriculum or timetable (ie general content of application in Sections 2-4 of current forms).

False declaration: If parents make false declarations in the exemption application, it can be declined on that basis. The main part of the application this applies to now is Section One, where they ask if you have had help with the application. If you have, then you are required to state so, and the nature of the assistance. There is nothing wrong with having support in planning or preparing your application, so long as you are up front about this.

Welfare concerns: If the Ministry has evidence that the child's safety or wellbeing in the home is in question, such as a notification from Oranga Tamariki that this is the case, then they can decline the application based on welfare concerns. HOWEVER, in such a situation they should usually let the parent know about the information they have received, and the parent should have the opportunity to respond. 

Of all applications declined from 2010-2017, 24% were declined due to a false declaration or "student health and safety." 

Ministry believes that the parent cannot carry out the proposed program (maybe): This is not something one generally hears of, but there is one case that is currently still being navigated where the Ministry made a decision to decline an application, even though the application satisfied the criteria, because based on outside information they had received, they believed the parents may not be capable of delivering the program outlined. Again, in such a case, the Ministry must inform the parents of such information, and give them an opportunity to speak to it. The current case aside, for this to be the reason to decline, the Ministry would need to have compelling evidence, and conduct further investigation including discussing with the parents before making a decision to decline on this basis. However, except in extreme cases, this really should not be a reason to decline. If parents have a sound application and plan, they should be given the opportunity to put it into practice. 

If your application is declined, does that mean the end of the road, and you just can't homeschool? Absolutely not! If you would like to gain a home education exemption after being declined, you have two choices: appeal or reapply. 

​Appeals: The letter declining an application will state that you may appeal the decision by writing to the Group Manager, Service Delivery, Learning Support at the national office. The appeal process requires (by law) that the Ministry must ask ERO to review your application and give a recommendation as to whether or not it meets the "as regularly and well" criteria. They will then review the file and this recommendation, and decide whether to grant the exemption or uphold the decline decision. Note, however, that if your application reasonably didn't meet the criteria (including additional information you may have provided), then appealing is essentially a waste of time. I recommend appeals only when there is evidence to suggest that the decision was unfair, or that the Ministry did not follow due process. I would also recommend you have support from an experienced home educator/advocate to understand the requirements and how best to lodge an appeal. To discuss this further, Contact Me. 

Reapplying: If your application was declined, you can simply reapply. First, though, you will need to update your application (or write a new one), ensuring that it DOES meet the criteria in a way that is satisfactory. You would then submit it as a new application to your local Ministry office. However, they are then required to forward it to a different regional office for processing (assessment), to avoid bias. Once that other office makes the approve/decline decision, the letter advising of this will come from your local office. For help understanding the requirements of an application, read my Guide, or Contact Me. If you are reapplying, you really want to make sure you get it right this time, so I'd recommend having an experienced home educator read over your application before you submit it. I do offer this service, or you could talk to your regional home educators group to find someone local who may be able to support you in this. 

Approximately 1 in 100 applications are declined; approximately 75% of these because they did not meet the criteria to satisfy the Ministry that the child would be taught at least as regularly and well as in a registered school. 

Before the Ministry can decline an application, there are certain processes they must follow, including giving parents an opportunity to provide additional information. 

If your application is declined, you can appeal (if the decision was unfair) or reapply, doing your best to ensure your new application does meet the criteria.

Pointers: You can use the table of contents in the Act linked above to click on any section and go directly to it.

• By referring to the information below, hopefully you can find out which parts of the Act apply to a particular issue, and then look them up for yourself. All headings below are linked directly to the relevant section of the Act.
• Sections in blue below are directly copied/pasted from the Act. 
• Under each section in the Act, where relevant, it tells you which parts of previous Acts compare to the new wording. You can look each of those acts up on the legislation website. Eg under Section 36 copied below it says: "Compare: 1989 No 80 s25" this means Education Act 1989, version 80 (latest), Section 25. If you searched on the website for Education Act 1989, it would be the top result (or just click the linked text below).
• All references to state schools also applies to state integrated schools, unless otherwise specified.

This is pretty much a continuation of Section 20 of the previous Act, with a little rewording. It says essentially:

• Every domestic* student from their 6th birthday to 16th birthday must be enrolled in a registered school
• Before a student’s seventh birthday, the student is not required to be enrolled at any school more than 3 kilometres walking distance from the student’s residence. (Also note Section 43 below)
• The above do not apply to international students

Of note: refer to the definition of "walking distance" in the interpretation section at the beginning of the Act

Also note Section 243 for offences/fines related to this. Fines can only be imposed upon conviction in a court of law. And Sections 245-248 set out related matters if such proceedings occur - such as the burden of proof being on the parents.​

Related: Section 62-66 deals with restrictions on enrolment in a primary school, including that students cannot be enrolled before their 5th birthday, maximum age, and also policies around cohort entry.

* Domestic students include all NZ or Australian citizens, NZ residents, children on student visas whose parents have a work visa, and a range of others. For more on this, see HERE

36 Students of registered schools required to attend whenever schools are open
​(1) Except as provided in this Act, a student is required to attend a registered school whenever it is open if the student--
(a) is required to be enrolled at a registered school:
(b) is aged 5 years and is enrolled at a registered school.
(2)​ A board must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the school’s students attend the school when it is open.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a student attends a school on any day if, on the day,--
(a)it has been open for instruction for 4 hours or more; and
(b)the student has been present for 4 hours or more when it was open for instruction.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 25(1)-(3)

Note Section 244 for offences/fines related to attendance. Fince can only be imposed upon conviction in a court of law. And Sections 245-248 set out related matters if such proceedings occur - such as the burden of proof being on the parents.

Also note that subsection 1(b) above is the source of much confusion, even though it first came into being in 2017. Just because an enrolled 5yo is required to attend does NOT mean that parents can't remove them from the roll if they no longer want them to attend school, either to begin homeschooling or for some other reason. See HERE for more on this. 

T​his section sets out the ability of the Secretary and parent to agree, or the Secretary to direct, regarding the special education of a child that they be enrolled in a particular State or specialist school, or get help from a special service. 

Subsection 1(b) puts the onus on the parent to "ensure the student has education or help from a special service". How often are children not getting the help they should be; this wording of the law makes it the parent's problem, not the school's or the MoE's. 

​Note: this is not about home educated students as such, but I'm including it here because so many of the parents I talk to have children with special education needs that are not being met at school (thus considering home education), and they want to know their rights. 

Also note Sections 33 and 34 which set out the right of all domestic students to free enrolment and free education at any State School from the age of 5 to 19, and to attend during all the hours it is open for instruction. It also spells out the right of children with special education needs to have the same rights - preventing schools from limiting the hours that they attend.

Also note the related Section 47, which allows a reconsideration (ie appeal) of directions given under this section.

This is the key piece of legislation governing the ability to home educate and the issuing of certificates of exemption.
38 Long-term exemptions from enrolment
(1)​ An employee of the Ministry designated by the Secretary for the purpose (a designated officer) may, on application by a parent of the student, grant the parent a certificate that exempts the student from the requirements of section 35 if the designated officer is satisfied that the student--
(a)is to be taught at least as regularly and well as in a registered school; or
(b)is to be taught at least as regularly and well as in a specialist school or a special service (if the student would otherwise be likely to need special education).
(2) If a designated officer refuses to grant a certificate under subsection (1), the applicant may appeal to the Secretary, who, after considering a report on the matter from the Chief Review Officer, must confirm the refusal or grant a certificate.
(3) The Secretary’s decision is final.
(4) An exemption certificate granted under this section must state why it was granted.
(5) The Secretary may revoke an exemption certificate, but only if the Secretary--
(a)has made reasonable efforts to get all of the relevant information; and
(b)has considered a report on the matter from the Chief Review Officer; and
(c)is not satisfied under subsection (1).
(6) If the Secretary thinks any student to whom an exemption certificate applies would be better off if receiving special education, the Secretary may revoke the certificate and issue a direction under section 37.
(7) An exemption certificate expires when the person to whom it applies turns 16 years or enrols at a registered school, whichever occurs first.
(8) A certificate continues in force until it is revoked or expires.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 21

While this part of the legislation is not specific to home education, it is often of interest to families whose 15yo students are ready to move on to further training or work. The Ministry is generally reluctant to issue an ELX, as it is known, to a home educated student, but in some circumstances they will. 

​39 Exemption from enrolment of student who has turned 15(1) The Secretary may, on application by a parent of a student who has turned 15 years, grant the parent a certificate that exempts the student from the requirements of section 35 if the Secretary is satisfied that it is sensible to do so, on the basis of--
(a) the student’s educational problems; and
(b) the student’s conduct; and
(c) the benefit (if any) the student is likely to get from attending another available school.(2) However, the Secretary may not exempt any student who--
(a) has made insufficient progress in terms of any curriculum statement for year 8 published under section 90; or
(b) has not enrolled for a year level above year 8.(3) The Secretary must tell the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki the name and address and any other available contact details of every student exempted under subsection (1).
(4) If satisfied that it is in the best interests of any student to do so, the Secretary may revoke the student’s certificate granted under subsection (1).
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 22

​This section states that a student with an exemption does not have to be enrolled in any school.

​This section allows for:

• A plan of reduced hours for well-being needs identified in writing by a medical practitioner or psychologist 
• A transition plan for introducing a child of 5 more slowly to school
• Neither of the above can be for longer than 6 months, but can be renewed or extended once for a further six months under certain circumstances
• Attendance requirements do not apply to students who are enrolled only for a part-time program under the secondary-tertiary program or multiple-timetable arrangement.

Again, this section does not directly apply to home educated students, but may be of interest/relevance to some parents.

If a student is under 10, and the walking distance between their residence and school is more than 3km, or they are over 10 and the walking distance is more than 5km, they can be exempted from attendance at a school. Note, however Section 46, which allows the Secretary to direct these children to be enrolled in a distance school (ie Te Kura). Section 239 sets out offences/fines for failing to comply with a direction to enrol such a student in a distance school. 

​The Secretary can also grant an exemption "if it is sensible to do so for some other reason" but for a period of no more than 7 school days. This is pretty pointless, as a principal has the power under Section 44 to exempt a student for up to 5 days if the absence is "justified."

All parents should teach their children this information and their rights, and how to respond if questioned!

​Section 48 requires a school board to take all reasonable steps to ensure the attendance of students enrolled in their school/s, and gives them the power to appoint an Attendance Officer for this purpose. 

Section 49 sets out the powers of attendance offices and constables:

• To detain any person who appears to be between 5 and 16 and who appears to be absent from school
• To question that person about their name, address, the school they attend and its address, and why they are absent
• Before they can do either of these things, they MUST produce a badge (if police) or evidence of appointment (ie a certificate sealed by a board who appointed them)
• If not satisfied that the person has a good reason for being absent, they may transport that child to their home or the school they think they are enrolled in
• An attendance office, principal, the Secretary or a person appointed by the board or the Secretary may file charging documents, conduct prosecutions and take any other proceedings under this Part (ie re truancy)

Section 241 sets out an offence/fine for deliberately obstructing or interfering with an attendance officer exercising their powers, payable on conviction in a court of law.

This section is of particular interest because it sets out the grounds on which a principal may allow a student not to attend for an agreed period, in order to recieve "acceptable" tuition outside of the school. This is a replacement of Section 25B of the current Act, which I have written about in this article:   http://www.cynthiahancox.com/information/truancy-and-the-home-educator under the heading Principal's Discretion. This has sometimes been applied by principals to allow parents to home educate their children part-time, or to do so while waiting on an exemption. Nothing in the new wording prevents it being applied in the same way, though of course that is not the intention of this segment of legislation. 
​
The section also covers the ability of a school to allow a student to leave early on a particular day if there are good reasons, and they have attended for 4 or more hours (which gets marked on the roll as full time attendance). ​

​Note especially 1 (d) for exempt students, or (c) for Te Kura students. 
(1) An employer may not employ any person under the age of 16 years--
(a) within school hours; or
(b) if the person is a student participating in a secondary–tertiary programme and the employment would interfere with the person’s ability to undertake the secondary–tertiary programme; or
(c) if the person is enrolled at a distance school and the employment would interfere with the person’s ability to do the work of the course in which the student is enrolled; or
(d) if the person’s parent is granted an exemption certificate under section 38 and the employment would interfere with the person’s ability to be taught as well and regularly as in a registered school; or
(e) if the employment would--
   (i) prevent or interfere with the person’s attendance at school; or
  (ii) in the case of a person who is a participating student, interfere with the person’s ability to undertake their secondary–tertiary programme; or
  (iii) if the person is enrolled at a distance school, interfere with the person’s ability to do the work of the course in which the person is enrolled.
​(2)Subsection (1) does not apply if the person provides the employer with a certificate of exemption or other satisfactory evidence that verifies that the person is exempted (otherwise than under section 38(1)) from enrolment at any school.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 30(1), (2)
Also note Section 240 for offences/fines related to this.

This section sets out that the Minister, by notice in the Gazette, can set out criteria for enrolment in a distance school (currently Te Kura is the only such distance school). It also discusses the right of the Secretary to direct some children to be enrolled etc. 

Students cannot be enrolled in the distance school unless they fit the criteria set out by the Minister (which is, essentially, what is laid out in the Enrolment Policy for Te Kura), or unless directed under Section 46.

Section 69 also sets out that some domestic students will have to pay fees for distance education, including students over 16 who are not enrolled in a school, and students with a Section 38 exemption (ie homeschoolers). This does not preclude the Minister from setting the fees at $0 as is currently the case for 16-19yos.

These sections deal with stand-down, suspension, exclusion or expulsion of a domestic student from a state school or state-integrated school. Section 76 also deals with the Secretary's power to direct that a student be enrolled in a specific school.

These parts may be of interest to parents trying to understand their rights and the law if their child is in this situation, often part of the reason some parents consider home education as an alternative.

Section 90 sets out that the Minister can publish a description of foundational curriculum policy statements, national curriculum statements and national performance measures, covering things like what areas of knowledge and understanding are to be covered, and what skills taught, during the school years, and what level of achievement is desireable, and how this will be measured etc.

These are specifically about what is required in SCHOOLS and do not apply to home educators. However, in meeting the "as regularly and well" requirements of an exemption application, we do need to give some consideration to ensuring our proposed program is at least as broad in scope as what is expected in schools, and will ensure the student is taught at least as regularly and well as they would be in school. 

Should the Minister publish any such requirements, they would be found in the Gazette; it may behoove us as home educators to be familiar with these. 

This affects home educators, because there has long been an issue where the Ministry questions groups of home educators who come together for various purposes, as to whether they "may be operating as a private school."

199 Secretary may require application for registration of school
The Secretary may require the managers of a private entity that is not registered under section 214 to apply for its registration as a private school under that section if the Secretary considers that the entity is operating as a school, whether or not any exemption certificates issued under section 38 are held in respect of any or all of the students being taught there.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 35B
Related is Schedule 7, Section 2:
Criteria for registration as private school
The criteria for registration as a private school are that the school--
(a)has premises that are suitable, as described in clause 3; and
(b)usually provides tuition for 9 or more students aged 5 or over but under 16; and
(c)has staffing that is suitable to the age range and level of its students, the curriculum taught at the school, and the size of the school; and
(d)has equipment that is suitable for the curriculum being delivered or to be delivered at the school; and
(e)has a curriculum for teaching, learning, and assessment and makes details of the curriculum and its programme for delivery available for parents; and
(f)has suitable tuition standards, as described in clause 5; and
(g)has managers who are fit and proper persons (as described in clause 6) to be managers of a private school; and
(h)is a physically and emotionally safe place for students.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 35C

​And Section 249 sets out related offences/fines.
Also note Section 629 (in Act or below) which states powers of entry into a premise where an unregistered private school is suspected of being.

Of relevance to parents with children in school, and who are experiencing significant issues with the school:

​Until now, any parent having a serious complaint or dispute with the school has had to take to the school's Board of Trustees, often with unsatisfactory results. Under the new legislation, there will be a Dispute Resolution Panel consisting of local community members and expert members for the purpose of resolving serious disputes - though parents must still first give the school an opportunity to resolve the dispute. These sections also set out the dispute resolution processes,  the types of outcomes, and when they are binding or non-binding. 

This section sets out the eligibility of students to enrol in a tertiary education program. The full wording is below, but note that any student who is eligible is entitled to be enrolled. 
​
​255 Enrolment of students
(1) A person is eligible to be enrolled as a student in a programme or training scheme provided by an institution if--
(a)the person is a domestic student or the institution’s council complies with section 525 and consents; and
(b)the person holds the minimum entry requirements for the programme or training scheme as determined by the institution’s council; and
(c)the person has attained,--
(i)if the institution has fixed a minimum age for enrolment at the institution, the fixed age; and
(ii)if the institution has fixed a minimum age for enrolment in the programme or training scheme, the fixed age.
(2)Subsection (1)(b) and (c) does not apply to a person if--
(a)the person has turned 20 years; or
(b)the council of the institution is satisfied that the person is capable of undertaking the programme or scheme concerned.
(3) An eligible student who applies for enrolment in a programme or training scheme at an institution is entitled to be enrolled in that programme or training scheme.
(4) However, the council of the institution--
(a)may determine the maximum number of students that may be enrolled in a particular programme or training scheme at the institution in a particular year if the council is satisfied that it is necessary to do so because of insufficiency of staff, accommodation, or equipment:
(b)may, in the selection of the students to be enrolled, give preference to eligible persons who are included in a class of persons that is under-represented among the students undertaking the programme or training scheme if--
(i)the maximum number of students who may be enrolled at an institution in a particular programme or training scheme in a particular year is determined by the council under paragraph (a); and
(ii)the number of eligible students who apply for enrolment in that programme or training scheme in that year exceeds the maximum number so determined.
(5) Nothing in this section prevents an institution’s council from refusing to permit, or from cancelling, the enrolment of a person as a student at the institution, or in a particular programme or scheme at the institution, on the ground that--
(a)the person is not of good character; or
(b)the person has been guilty of misconduct or a breach of discipline; or
(c)the person is enrolled for full-time instruction at another institution or at a school; or
(d)the person has made insufficient progress in the person’s study or training after a reasonable trial at the institution or at another institution.
(6) The chief executive of an institution that provides approved programmes of pre-service teacher training must ensure that the appropriate authorities of the institution liaise with the appropriate authorities of other institutions that provide the programmes to establish common requirements to govern the selection and enrolment of people in those programmes.
(7) In this section,--
eligible student, in relation to a programme or training scheme at an institution, means a person who is eligible to be enrolled as a student in that programme or scheme
year means a period of 12 months commencing on 1 January.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 224

This section sets out the powers of the Education Review Office. 462 (2) states specifically the application to exempt home educated students:
(2) Sections 466 to 469 apply in relation to education services provided to persons who are exempted from the requirements of section 35; and, for the purposes of this subsection and sections 466 to 469, education service is to be construed in that context, and the meaning it has in the definition of applicable service in section 10(1) does not apply.

Sections 466-469 sets out the specific provisions concerning students with enrolment exemptions (note they do not have power or entry into a private home):

Provisions concerning students with enrolment exemption

466 Functions of Chief Review OfficerThe Chief Review Officer--
(a) may carry out reviews (which may be general or in relation to particular matters) of the education services provided to persons exempted from the requirements of section 35, and must carry out the reviews when directed by the Minister to do so; and
(b) must administer the preparation of reports to the Minister on the undertaking and results of the reviews; and
(c) must give the Minister any other assistance and advice that the Minister requires on the education services provided to persons exempted from the requirements of section 35.Compare: 1989 No 80 s 328A

467 Review officersReview officers designated under section 465 are also review officers for the purposes of section 466, and sections 468 and 469 apply to them accordingly.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 328B

468 Powers of review officers for purposes of section 466(1) For the purposes of enabling any functions of the Chief Review Officer to be performed for the purposes of section 466, any review officer may, at any reasonable time and having given reasonable notice,--
(a) conduct inspections or inquiries:
(b) require a parent or other person to produce, and permit the review officer to make copies or extracts of, documents or information relating to--
(i) the education service the parent or other person provides; or
(ii) people to whom the education service is (or has been) provided:
(c) require a parent or other person to make or provide statements, in the form and manner that is reasonable in the circumstances, about any matters relating to provision of the education service provided by that parent or person:
(d) inspect the work of any person to whom the education service concerned is (or has been) provided:
(e) meet and talk with any person to whom the education service concerned is being provided.(2) Nothing in this section confers on a review officer the power to enter any dwelling house without the consent of the owner or occupier.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 328C

469 Review officers to prove identity before acting under section 468A review officer who exercises any power under section 468 must, before exercising that power and, if requested at any later time, produce to the parent or other person providing the education service concerned the review officer’s certificate of designation.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 328D

Home educators are paid a small supervision allowance; the Ministry cannot pay out any public funds unless on the basis that the legislation grants them the power to do so. While the supervision allowance itself is not written into law in so many words, the section of the legislation that applies is this:

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

For more on the Supervision Allowance, see my article HERE

 ​These sections set out the powers of entry and inspection for an authorised person into schools, hostels, ECEs and private training establishments. There is no power of entry into a private home, with one possible exception (though it requires a warrant):

629 Entry where private school suspected of being unregistered
(1) A person who holds an authorisation under section 628(3), and who has reasonable cause to believe that any premises are being used as a private school in contravention of section 249, may apply for a warrant to enter the premises.
(2) An application for a warrant must be in writing, on oath, and be made to a District Court Judge, Justice of the Peace, or Registrar or Deputy Registrar of any court.
(3)​ A warrant may be issued if the person issuing it is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the premises are being used as a private school in contravention of section 249.
(4) A warrant issued under subsection (3) must contain--
(a)a reference to this section; and
(b)the full name of the person authorised; and
(c)a description of the premises concerned; and
(d)the date on which it was issued and the date on which it expires.
(5) A warrant issued under subsection (3) authorises the person named in it, at any reasonable time within 4 weeks of the date on which it is issued, to enter and inspect the premises described in the warrant to ascertain whether those premises are being used as a private school in contravention of section 249.
(6) A person acting under a warrant issued under subsection (3) must retain the warrant and must produce it, along with evidence of identity, to the occupier of the premises concerned--
(a)on first entering the premises; and
(b)whenever subsequently reasonably required to do so by that occupier.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 35S

The Education and Training Act 2020 is a very large piece of legislation. The parts pointed out above are key sections of relevance to home educators and those who may be considering tranisitioning to home education. This is not the only piece of relevant legislation - for example the Care of Children Act which sets out the right of parents to determine such matters as how and where a child will be educated, legislation related to Family Court matters where parents are in dispute about this, and the regulatory framework around Playcentres may also be of relevance. 

However, for the purposes of this article, I would encourage all home educating parents to be aware of the above sections, at least sufficiently that they can return to examine them more closely if a need arises. I also strongly encourage all home educating parents to ensure their children understand what can and can't happen if they are questioned in public by anyone about why they aren't in school, and how to respond. 

ACE (Accelerated Christian Education) products and services are a popular choice among Christian homeschooling families in NZ. I see many questions about where to order the materials, and how the pricing is done etc, so here's some current information.

For New Zealanders, there are basically three main sources of the materials - SCEE in Australia, or a limited number of U.S suppliers. The situation with each varies, so let's look at them one by one.

Background: SCEE is the official South Pacific distributor of ACE products. They have a warehouse, bring in materials in bulk from the U.S, and on-sell to schools and families around the South Pacific. For many years, nearly all families in NZ purchased through SCEE. However, with increasing globalisation, more families began to seek cheaper alternatives and order from the U.S. In an effort to protect their market share, a few years ago SCEE asked ACE Ministries (the U.S parent company) to tell all U.S distributors not to sell to NZ families. Most, but not all, of them stopped doing so. 

Member Discounts and Ordering: One can order from SCEE either as a member of one of the affiliated schools or support agencies, or independently. The two affiliates for NZ home educators are HENZ (Home Education NZ) or Accelerate. Accelerate is the distance arm of SCEE, and is based in Australia. Just in the last couple of years SCEE has started directing NZ families to them rather than HENZ. High school age students under either of these work towards the ACE Certificate program, which is controlled by SCEE. A part of the contract requires that students paces be purchased from SCEE; if they don't see what they consider a suitable ordering history to indicated this, they will refuse to issue the certificate.

Families who are members of SCEE or Accelerate have a 5% discount on the cost of materials. According to the most recent invoices I've seen, they are also not charged GST on their orders (if anyone has a more recent order which shows differently, please let me know), though this may change as it does not appear to be in line with the current laws* (see below for more on this). Affiliate families order online through the webstore; their order will have their discount applied, shipping added and be in Australian dollars, which is how it is charged to their credit cards and then converted by their banks at whatever the current exchange rate is. 

Non-Affiliates There is another support agency in NZ - HSNZ (Homeschooling NZ). They are by far the biggest agency, though their scope is much wider than just ACE these days. They used to be a SCEE affiliate and provider of the ACE Certificate program, but wanting to offer Christian families and schools in NZ a much broader and more tailorable and NZ-relevant framework, they ended their contract with SCEE and created the CENZ Certificate program, which is also recognised by the Universities of NZ. They do not require member families to purchase from any specific curriculum providers. 

Both HSNZ families and others who choose to use ACE resources without belonging to a support agency can order from SCEE if they choose to do so. However, the billing system is more complex. Below is a brief outline. This difference is something SCEE instituted when the new GST laws came into effect, requiring overseas companies who sell more than $60K of goods or services to NZ customers per year to register for GST, collect it from customers on orders under $1000, and pay it to IRD. Here's how it works:

• A customer orders materials through the SCEE webstore (or via email etc). On the webstore, they are billed in Australian dollars, with shipping added. They get a confirmation of order email in Aussie dollars just like they saw on the webstore. 
• Next they get a new invoice. This time it's in NZ dollars, with the SCEE NZ* company listed, and shipping AND GST are added. They then need to pay the amount on this invoice by internet banking or Paypal.
• A significant fact is that the cost of the materials is not the AUD price converted at the current exchange rate, but a pre-set NZ price that is higher than the AUD equivalent. A recent invoice I saw put this at NZ$7.19 per pace/score key, plus GST and shipping. This can mean that what you get billed is significantly more than you may have expected when placing the order on the website, not just because of GST but also because of the higher pricing, which adds up over a number of items. Notably, nowhere on the website or webstore does it advise of these pricing or ordering process differences. GST is charged on both product and shipping (which is also a service) as required by the legislation.

For families who wish to order from an alternative supplier, there are two main options.

For Homeschooling NZ families only there is an arrangement in place with a specific U.S supplier. Details of this can be found on the HSNZ member Noticeboard or in the ordering information document under Resources on their website. As this is a company that supplies less than the $60K of product to NZ each year, they do not charge GST. Ordering is done by email to a specified contact rather than through their website, and they are great about minimizing shipping costs where possible. They email an invoice which can be paid by credit/debit card or Paypal. Their current per-pace price for most items is $3.20 US, which works out today to NZ$4.14, plus shipping. If your order is over $1000 including shipping you will be charged GST and duty at the border by NZ Customs, so keep that in mind if placing larger orders.

Other families choose to order from other U.S suppliers using a YouShop drop shipping address. This can be set up via NZ Post. When ordering via YouShop, the supplier is sending to, effectively, a U.S address, and may offer free shipping. NZ Post then calculates shipping to NZ, and charges that and a service fee, plus GST, to send the parcel on to you. NZ Post will also charge GST on the value of the product ordered, not just their shipping and services, regardless of the value of the parcel. The legislation requires them to do so.

Currently, the most cost effective source of ACE materials depends on your family situation and affiliations, if any.  

• For HENZ or Accelerate families, ordering from SCEE is usually cheapest due to a 5% discount and not (currently) being charged GST. 
• For non-affiliate families, other U.S suppliers may be the most cost effective option. Note, however, that NZ Math and Social Studies paces can only be ordered from SCEE (though for HSNZ families there are alternatives to these) 

* Note re GST for affiliates vs non-affiliates. As I've been writing this I've been thinking about how SCEE can not charge GST to some families (ie those who are affiliated) though the new legislation requires all suppliers selling more than $60K/year to NZ customers to do so. I believe the answer is likely this: in utilizing their previously registered SCEE NZ company name for all non-affiliate orders, they are effectively reducing their total sales volume to NZ under the SCEE Australia company to less than $60K (their affiliate customer base here is much smaller than it used to be); therefore sales via SCEE Australia can avoid charging GST to the customers whose orders are processed under that banner. Sales to non-affiliates are billed via SCEE NZ, and charged GST.

FAQ: "I'm writing applications for more than one child. Do they have to be totally different, or can I just change parts of the first one for the next child?" 

Your applications do not need to be completely different for each child. After all, teachers don't have to have completely different plans for each child in their class! However, you do need to provide some evidence you are taking into consideration the individual needs of each student. Whether that means they are working at different levels in core subjects so using a different grade/year level of program, or that you are setting some differing assignments in family unit studies in accordance with their abilities, or one is learning piano while another is into dance, or what have you,  will depend on your children, their ages, interests and needs.

​After you've written the first application, just save an extra copy, use the Replace function to change the name throughout (if you're written it in Word which makes this so much easier, otherwise you'll have to do it manually), and then go through and edit the parts that need modifying for the next child - if the children are fairly close in age this is 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. If they are more disparate in age, then the changes may be more significant.

If you are writing an application for, say, twins, you may not be sure how to personalise the applications at all. Do try and think of at least some areas where you can add comments about differing abilities or interests. Eg one might be particularly strong in spelling while the other really enjoys creative writing. You could comment on these, also indicating how you will continue to encourage them in these things. Or they might both like woodwork, but be keen on building some different projects. 

With children who are twins or very close in age, you might also consider a combined application. For more on that option, read THIS. 

General application hints:

• You do not have to use the Ministry's form to write the application - though it is recommended you use Section One of it. 
• For the rest, it's often easier/better to write it in Word or similar. This gives you better control over formatting, avoids the tech meltdowns the Ministry form often has, and makes it easier to change out additional copies for the next child. You would then just attach this separate document along with Section One in an email to send to the Ministry (no need to insert it into their form at all)
• I have a guide to walk you through the application requirements and help you write your own, including a template you can use. See HERE 

A summary of what should be different in each application:

• Child's name (and pronouns where applicable)
• Special Learning Needs where applicable
• English and Math program if they are of different ages/stages in their learning
• Any other graded program content if not working at the same level
• Info about individual interests, special abilities, or perhaps weaknesses you are working on
• The Topic Plan - use a different topic for each child's application, even if you intend to do them all together

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)