The following are the dates (inclusive) during which each of the MoE's offices will be closed during the Christmas/New Year holiday period. At all other times, it should be business as usual. Bear in mind though, if sending in an exemption application, that January is always an extremely busy time for Senior Advisors as they deal with matters related to the schools they are responsible for ahead of the start of the new school year. Nearly all SA's who process exemption applications are also Senior Advisor for a number schools. A number of staff may also take leave during January.

For those sending in exemptions with an intention of beginning homeschooling in the new year, do try to get them into the relevant office by November if at all possible to ensure processing time without undue stress.

*Note: not all offices have responded at the time of posting to the emails I sent them (as each regional office acts independently) - will add those dates as recieved. As a general rule though, all offices are closed from 22nd Dec, with some reopening on the 3rd and others on the 7th of Jan

National Office (Wellington): 22nd December to 3rd January

Regional Offices:
Tai Tokerau (Northland): 22nd Dec to Jan 2nd. No exemptions processed until the 7th.
Auckland: 22nd Dec to Jan 2nd
Hamilton: 22nd Dec to Jan 2nd. Lead advisor on leave until the 7th of Jan.
BOP/Rotorua/Taupo (Tauranga): 22nd Dec to Jan 6th
Hawke's Bay/Gisbourne (Napier): 22nd Dec to Jan 6th. Limited staff in Jan but should be processing apps
Taranaki-Whanganui-Manawatu (Whanganui): not yet responded
Lower Hutt: 22nd Dec to Jan 2nd
Nelson-Marlborough-West Coast (Nelson): 22nd Dec to Jan 2nd
Canterbury: 22nd Dec to Jan 6th
Otago: not yet responded
Invercargill: not yet responded

A question I get asked from time to time is how to complete an exemption application that meets the requirements if the child has significant intellectual disabilities that affect their learning. Several times, the child has had a "mental age" of about 2-3, though is around 6-7 years old. The following is some general advice on how to approach the content of the application form for a child who is obviously not going to be engaging in a "typical" program of learning in the next 12 months, which is what the content of the application essentially covers. 

There are no compulsory subjects for home educators, though we do have to show an education at least as broad in scope as they would recieve in a registered school. In practice, that usually means it's easiest to address the 7-8 learning areas of the NZ curriculum, as in reality most folk are covering all of these in some manner anyway, as they are simply logical, natural areas of learning and development. Those learning areas, or "subjects" are: English (literacy), Math (numeracy), Science, Social Studies, Health & PE, Technology, the Arts, and finally the optional subject of a second language. Don't worry about the last one, unless you have a bilingual family, are teaching sign language, or particularly wish to include language other than English for your child. 

As for any child, but most importantly for one with significant disabilities, an application should clearly show:

In addition, for a child with special needs, you need to outline what their special needs are and how it affects their learning, and any specific ways in which you will provide them with additional support or modify the program of learning to meet their identified needs. This might include things like assistive technology, speech therapy, occupational therapy, allowing more time for tasks to be completed and so on and so forth. For a significantly disabled child such as is the focus of this article, I would include a brief statement that sets the tone for the rest of the application about the level they are performing at and how the content of the proposed program takes that into account. 

Remember, the content of any program of learning should be appropriate to the needs and abilities of the individual child. No one could reasonably expect you to write about developing, say, essay writing skills in a child who cannot hold a pencil and has limited lanugage ability! So, what you do include will likely be fairly simple. The main point is to consider what the subject area is really about - what skills are we focussed on, what ideas do we want to expose them to etc - and what activities and learning are reasonable along those lines for your child. Here's a brief synopsis of each subject as it would apply to an effectively "early preschool" child:

English/literacy: This subject is about developing reading, writing, listening and speaking skills. For a child performing at the level of a 2 year old, for example, you might be focussed on reading them stories, talking to them about the things you see and do, incorporating suitable activities to develop gross and fine motor skills (essential to pre-writing development), and generally exposing them to language in appropriate ways. If there is speech therapy involved, formal or informal, talk about that. If the child is capable of responding in some way to stories that are read, discuss that. Essentially, think about early childhood type activities that are aimed at laying foundations for language development, and focus on those. Also, if your child has, for example, a physical disability that limits their ability to write with a pen, but is more advanced cognitively, then discuss how you are providing means to enable the child to advance in the areas where they are able without undue limitation due to areas where they are less able (this applies to all subjects). 

Math/numeracy: the development of understanding and skills around colour, shape, measurement, number, time etc, appropriate to the child's ability. You could talk about how you show him and talk to him about colour and shape, his ability to identify objects, group like objects, count pegs, identify bigger and smaller, shorter and taller etc. Maybe these things are mostly being modelled to the child with limited participation yet. The point is that you know the kinds of things for him to learn, and are using ways to help him with those concepts. A child with more ability might be working on recognising written numbers, counting to 100, measuring objects, helping with baking, playing with money, learning about clocks etc. 

Science: The focus here is on exploring the physical world - things you can see and hear, smell and touch or taste. Usually the natural world around you. Discuss how your child is exposed to ideas/things/concepts, how you talk about them with her, how you help her engage with them. Growing some plants? Watching a rainbow? Splashing in puddles and then discussing rain, wet vs dry, mud etc. Watching an ant trail then looking up a short video about ants. Mixing baking soda and vinegar to make a "volcano." Making things with play dough, learning to care for animals. It's all science! Do these activities sound too advanced for your child? No problem -think of what they can do or watch. I have a not-quite-2-year old living here right now. If I think about science and him, it would be water play, sand play, visiting the animals and trying to say their names, some playdough activities, exploring the garden - dirt, plants, bugs, feeling the grass under his feet and the sun on his face - talking to him constantly about the things he points to or we experience etc. 

Social Studies: In the early years, this is usually focussed on developing an awareness of self, family and local community. This can be through story, discussion, actitives, local visits etc. How do you help the child understand who they are, who their family are, and where they live - at a very basic level? 

Technology: This is about practical and problem-solving skills. So for a young child, very life-based usually. Can your child participate in some fashion in cooking (measuring, stirring, shaping, tasting)? How about gardening? Hitting a half-inserted nail with a hammer or comparing lengths of wood and watching/helping mum or dad with a small project (woodwork)? Or perhaps you will focus on life skills - which can be anything at all really, so long as it has a practical focus. 

Health and P.E: Two sides to this - describe how a child is regularly physically active (in keeping with their abilities), and talk about how you will help them develop appropriate health knowledge. The latter will depend on their understanding at this stage, but probably will focus on things like washing hands, cleaning teeth, brushing hair, getting dressed, toileting etc. Later you will talk about being sun smart, stranger danger, basic first aid etc. If there is any OT/PT being done, I'd include info on that here. 

The Arts: art, music, dance and drama. How does your child participate in any of these? Finger painting? Listening to music? Dancing to music? Bashing on a xylophone or drums? Dressing up?

I hope the above has given you some ideas. Remember, you are not alone; there are lots of families home educating children with disabilities, and both local support groups and Facebook home ed groups are a great place to connect with others. 

The exemption requirements overall apply to all children and families. The specific content will vary according to the child's age, needs and abilities. My exemption guide pack will walk you through the requirements if you like, and I'm happy to review applications to provide more specific guidance case-by-case. See HERE. 

You can do it! Just take it one step at a time! :-) 

Older home educated students often desire to engage in part time employment to gain work and/or life experience, and this can be an excellent opportunity to extend their learning, enable them to “try out” a job of interest to see if that is what they would like to pursue long term, and to gain various skills.

Sometimes the question arises as to whether home educated students under 16 can be employed during certain hours.

Section 30[i] of the Education Act 1989 addresses this. It states in part:
30 Employment of school-age children
(1) No person shall employ any person who has not turned 16 at any time--
(c) in the case of a person who has been granted a certificate of exemption under section 21, when the employment interferes with the person’s ability to be taught as well and regularly as in a registered school.

Notes:
1) The law does not define “as regularly and well”- rather a parent who applies for a home education (Section 21) exemption provides the Ministry with an outline of their plan for their child’s education, and the Ministry grants the exemption on the basis that they “are satisfied that the child will be taught as regularly and well as in a registered school.”[ii]
2) Once exempt, the student’s ongoing education and program is the parent’s responsibility – they can make changes, incorporate new elements etc as they see fit. It is up to the parent to ensure that their child continues to be “taught as regularly and well…” and they can arrange their schedule in whatever way best achieves this. If the parent deems suitable employment to be part of their child’s learning program, that is up to them.
3) If the employment being considered is not part of the student’s learning program, but rather additional to it, then the parent should give consideration as to whether sufficient hours are left in the week outside of the employment for the student to complete their regular program of learning, but this is not required to be carried out within certain hours (eg “school hours”).
4) On employment websites, it may refer to students under 16 not being able to be employed during school hours etc – this applies to students who are NOT exempt (ie are required to attend a registered school per Section 20[iii]). Students which hold a home education exemption are exempt from this requirement, and so this restriction does not apply to them. The only restriction is as quoted above, that it does not “interfere with their ability to be taught as regularly and well…”

​In summary, Section 30 of the Education Act has specific wording for different situations, including students who are required to attend school, students enrolled in Correspondence (Te Kura), and students who hold home education exemptions. Home educated students cannot be employed to an extent that interferes with their ability to be taught as regularly and well, but hours are not defined and are up to the individuals involved to consider and work out. As the parent is the one responsible to see that the student is taught as regularly and well, and to oversee their program, only the parent can reasonably determine whether any such interference exists.

Any employer with further concerns is advised to seek independent legal advice.
​

[i] For the full wording of Section 30 see http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0080/latest/DLM178256.html?search=sw_096be8ed8177ae52_employment_25_se&p=1#DLM178256

[ii] Section 21 Education Act 1989 See http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0080/latest/DLM178227.html?search=sw_096be8ed8177ae52_employment_25_se&p=1

[iii] Section 20 requires non-exempt students ages 6-16 to attend school: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0080/latest/DLM178225.html?search=sw_096be8ed8177ae52_employment_25_se&p=1#DLM178225

In July 2017, then-Opposition spokeman for education, Chris Hipkins, announced a number of proposed changes or review of the education system which Labour would act upon if elected. The mention of "home-based educators" included there sent ripples of concern through the home education community. Today our Labour-led government, via Mr Hipkins, now Minister for Education, formally announced the beginning of those proposed reviews. Again, families are concerned about what this might mean for home educators. Let's take a closer look:

The last several governments have been keen on promoting the value of "early childhood education" especially via Early Childhood Education centres, and Labour is no different. All children ages 3, 4 & 5 in NZ are entitled to up to 20 hours a week of ECE funding, paid for by the government. That funding is the primary way in which the government funds ECE in NZ. 

As an alternative to ECE in facilities such as a kindergarten, some parents prefer home-based ECE services, where their children are cared for and educated in a family home with a small number of other young children (5 or less), allowing for more personal attention and a more family-like atmosphere. Providers of such services can still be paid the ECE 20 hour per child funding, so long as they meet the government's criteria to have a licensed home-based ECE service.

Because the government is paying for these services, they have the right to set out certain criteria. 

What Mr Hipkins and the Labour government have proposed is to review home-based early childhood education services, and investigate the introduction of minimum qualifications levels for these educators. 

In the wording of all documents, announcements etc, it has been clear that they are referring to the providers of home-based ECE services, rather than to home educators in general (ie homeschoolers). Where the term "home-based educators" is used, it is within the context of a heading or section specifically stating it is about "the review of home-based early childhood education," such as on page 21 of this Cabinet document on the reviews being sought. 

​This review is also not targeted only at home-based ECE providers; ECEs in general will be reviewed, and incentives given to thos who employ only fully qualified teachers. There are also a number of other parts to the review, such as reviewing NCEA, the Tomorrow's Schools policies that have underpinned the education system since 1989 and so forth. 

In so far as I have seen, there has been nothing whatsoever that indicates an intention to review home education policies. Home education/homeschooling is certainly not mentioned at all in the Cabinet proposal or any documents so far released. 

The short answer is we don't know. During the lead up to the elections, Chris Hipkins submitted thousands of written questions to the then-Minister of Education Hekia Parata on a range of matters. Within those many, many questions were only 7 connected to home education. They were (summarised):

• What criteria does the MoE use to assess home education applications?
• How many home education applications have been approved in the last 5 years?
• How many applications have been declined in the last 5 years?
• Why were they declined?
• How many home educated students have been directed to attend a registered school because they were not meeting the required standards in the last 5 years?
• What checks, if any, does the MoE make on the quality of education being provided for home educated students?
• What checks, if any, does the MoE make on the physical environment and safety of home educated students?

All of these questions were answered (some not very accurately). What Mr Hipkins or his party made of the answers or intend to do with them, if anything, remains unknown. 

What we do know, though, is that so far our current government have not released any statements or information that indicate an intention to review home education. I believe that they have so many other aspects of education to focus on at present that they are unlikely to do so in the near future. Keep in mind that at around 0.7% of the total student population, home educators are, to the government's mind, small in number and therefore not all that important. 

A new government which is seeking to consolidate it's position in its first term is unlikely to focus much time or resources on relatively insignificant matters. 

Previously, less than favourable changes for home educators have been instigated by NZ First while in co-power, and of course we once again have NZ First in government together with Labour. However, the current Associate Minister for Education, Tracey Martin (NZ First), herself a former home educator, responded (as Deputy Leader and Education Spokesperson for NZ First) to the Home Education Foundation's request to each party for their position on home education in 2014 by saying: 
"At this time the New Zealand First Manifesto is silent in the area of Home Schooling. The reason for this is that no member of the Home Schooling community approached us over the last three years to inform us of any difficulties or areas of concern/improvement. New Zealand First does not create policy without first having a relationship with those to be directly affected by that policy.
Having Home Schooled one of our sons for a period of time I have a working understanding of the current environment under which the parents and students you represent are working."

NZ First was also shown in the Family First's brochure on election issues to support parental choice for education.
​
Nothing in their 2017 manifesto suggested any change.

As a sidenote of possible interest, Tracey Martin has written all the education policy for NZ First since 2008. She is currently one of three Associate Ministers of Education, so has certain areas of responsbility, one of the chief being Learning Support (Special Ed). THIS is a very interesting interview with her. 

On the one hand, there is nothing to be concerned about in regards to the intended review of home-based ECE educators, as that has nothing to do with home education. 

HOWEVER, we do need to remain alert, informed, wise and responsive. Any government can make decisions that DO affect home educators. If we do not keep ourselves informed, and respond appropriately, we may miss the opportunity to take action to protect our rights and freedoms as home educating parents. 

I recommend the following:

• READ the Cabinet paper on the current review so you know what the proposals and intentions are, HERE
• Be CONNECTED to other home educators in ways which increase the likelihood of you being informed of issues that arise. For example, joining NCHENZ (free) means you will receive a quarterly newsletter. You can also join their Facebook page. There are numerous NZ home ed Facebook groups - some general, and some special interest. And then there are regional support groups and networks. 
• CHECK FACTS via a reliable source before reacting to an "issue" though - sometimes well meaning people misunderstand something and lots of speculation and worry can be rife unnecessarily.
• REMAIN AWARE of announcements, news articles and so forth related to education, and if you see something that could affect home education, then check the facts and discuss with experienced home educators. Let NCHENZ know if there is something of concern that needs to be investigated or addressed.
• SUPPORT the people who are proactively working to promote the interests of home educators. The NCHENZ committee, including myself, and Todd Roughton of Homeschooling NZ are some of the key ones who come to mind, along with those people within some regional groups who are liasing with the regional MoE offices. (More regional liaisons are needed - talk to me if you're interested!)
• PLAY YOUR PART by being aware of your rights and responsibilities as a home educator, and acting in a way that reflects well on the whole home education community. (More on this in a future post)
• STEP UP when called upon - if NCHENZ or another reliable home education source inform you of issues that need to be addressed and actions to take, please do your part. 

Enjoy the freedom you have to home educate your children. But never take it for granted! Remember, a lot of the freedom you now have is there because those who went before you did these things, without the benefit of the internet. 

The Education Act 1989 is the piece of legislation that governs most things education related. You can read the entire Act HERE. 

​The main two sections to consider here are:

​Section 20  New Zealand citizens and residents between 6 and 16 to go to school
(1) Except as provided in this Act, every person who is not an international student is required to be enrolled at a registered school at all times during the period beginning on the person’s sixth birthday and ending on the person’s 16th birthday.
(2) Before a child’s seventh birthday, the child is not required to be enrolled at any school more than 3 kilometres walking distance from the child’s residence.

​Section 21 Long term exemptions from enrolment
(1) An employee of the Ministry designated by the Secretary for the purpose (in this section and section 26 referred to as a designated officer) may, by certificate given to a person’s parent, exempt the person from the requirements of section 20,--
    (a) on the parent’s application; and
    (b) if satisfied that the person--
       (i) will be taught at least as regularly and well as in a registered school; or
      (ii) in the case of a person who would otherwise be likely to need special education, will be taught at least as regularly and well as in a special class or clinic or by a special service.
(2) A certificate under subsection (1) continues in force until it is revoked or expires under this section.

So, legally, a child from their 6th to 16th birthdays must be enrolled in and attend school, unless they are exempt under Section 21 as home educators (or one of the other types of exemption, but we won't go into those here). This means that until the exemption is granted, the child should remain in school. 

In some circumstances, parents believe it is not in their child's best interests, or otherwise reasonable, to keep their child in school during the application process. Common scenarios include:

• A child who is suffering from extreme anxiety regarding school
• A child who is not safe at school
• A child who's health and/or well-being prevents them from attending school
• A family who have just moved to the country or an area, and to put them in school for a very short time would be unreasonably disruptive and/or expensive for family and school
• A family who have made a last-minute decision to proceed with home education, and school is going back in for a new term or similar
• A family who believe their child is simply better learning at home, perhaps because they have not been making appropriate progress at school
• A family who are simply keen to get on with it
• A family who's child turns six during the application process

Every parent has both the right and the responsibility to look out for their child's best interests. The Care of Children Act states that parents have the right to decide important things for their children, including where and how they will be educated (which is the reason Section 21 exemptions exist). I encourage all parents to remain within the law if at all possible - the onus is on parents in most circumstances to arrange to submit an exemption application in a timely fashion so that they can begin homeschooling their child without a period of truancy. However, parents must also consider their child's needs and well being and do what is best for them. 

If you have decided to keep your child home during the application process, then there are some things you should know, and some options you should consider. 

Firstly, if either of the following can be applied, then there will be no "truancy" during this time:
1) Talk to your child's school principal. Explain the decision you have made, and ask them if they would keep the child on the roll and mark them down under one of the following until the exemption is granted:

• "justified absence"
• learning at home with the school providing schoolwork 
• principal's discretion for alternative education on the basis that you will be educating them at home (Section 25B) 

2) See your child's doctor and ask for a medical certificate on the grounds of anxiety or mental health (or physical health if applicable) for a period of 4-6 weeks. Give a copy to the school, who must then mark the student as absent for medical reasons. 

If the principal and/or doctor is unwilling or unable to be supportive about this, then you will need to decide whether to keep them home anyway. Meanwhile, they will be marked on the roll as "unjustified absence." 

​When a referral to Attendance Services will happen
Each school is responsible to have and abide by it's own policies regarding the running of the school, and this includes how they handle non-attendance. The policy will usually determine at what point the school will refer the student to Attendance Services. This may be as little as three days, or as long as 20 days, of unjustified absence. After 20 consecutive days of unjustified absence, the school can remove the student from their roll.

All students in NZ are on a national database known as ENROL, which also shows them linked to their school of enrolment, or as being home educated if exempt. If a student is removed from the school's roll and not enrolled in another school, nor exempt, then there is an automatic enquiry triggered for Attendance Services to follow up on.

If your child has just turned six and has never attended a school or ECE, then they will not yet be on ENROL. In that case, it is very unlikely anyone will be following up on why they are not enrolled in/attending school unless something else triggers it. 

Attendance services are contracted out by the MoE to various companies across the regions. All of these subcontractors have one primary role in regards to absent children: to talk to the families and try to ensure the child is returned to some suitable form of education. If they are asked to do so by the school, or an automated enquiry from ENROL, then they must follow up a family (though some are prompt about this, and some seem to take a long time!)

If you are contacted by Attendance Services, it should begin as a non-threatening enquiry as to why your child is not in school, and what your plans are. 

If you tell Attendance Services that you have chosen to home educate and have put in an exemption application, then the only things they should say then are:

• That usually takes about 4-6 weeks to process
• Please refer to the Ministry's website for more information

They might also try to discuss, especially if the child has already been absent for some time, whether it would be best to put them in school until the exemption is granted. If you have made a firm decision about that and communicate it to the Attendance Officer, then they should leave it there. 

Attendance Services only remaining role in the event of an exemption application is to follow up and ensure that the exemption was granted so they can close their file - they can do this by accessing ENROL in due course. 

Most Attendance Services staff are pleasant people, and in some cases they can be very supportive. There's no reason to be afraid of them.

On rare occasions in the past, we have had incidences where individual attendance staff have made ill-informed and inappropriate statements to parents about the exemption process and their part in it. If you happen to experience that, please get in touch. 

It's important to understand that Section 20 (requiring attendance) is there to protect a child's right to an education. It's aimed at ensuring children do go to school. For a law to work, there have to be possible penalties for those who break the law. In the case of on-going truancy, the law (Section 24) allows for fines to be imposed on parents, but ONLY upon conviction in a court of law. The fine for the first infringement is a maximum of $300, and for subsequent infringements, up to $3000.

Note, however, that a court case and fines are generally treated as a last resort when all attempts to discuss and support a family so their child can be returned to school have failed. 

In a situation where a parent has decided on an alternative form of education - namely in this case home education - and is in the process of applying for an exemption, there is unlikely to be any attempt to prosecute them. If, however, the exemption is declined and the child remains absent for a prolonged period without resolution, then the Ministry may consider doing so. 

An exemption application and attendance are two separate matters. Your child being "truant" during this process does not affect the exemption application and it's outcome. Note, however, that you can expect to see the following:

• When the Ministry acknowledges receipt of your application, they use a form letter which includes a reminder that children from 6-16 must remain in school during this process
• If you happen to have direct contact with Ministry staff, they may also remind you of this law

These things are to be expected. Take them in your stride and consider them in context with the rest of the information in this post.

If at all possible, apply for a home education exemption 4-6 weeks before you intend to begin homeschooling, and remove your child from school once it is granted. (Sometimes exemptions are processed much faster than that, but no guarantees). 

If this is not possible, and you feel your child cannot remain in school until it is granted, discuss the situation with your child's principal and/or doctor and see if you can have them under "justified absence" in the meantime. 

If that fails, you must consider the best interests of your child and act accordingly, understanding that you may be contacted by Attendance Services during this time. If so, be polite and firm, and ask for support from your local home educators group, myself or NCHENZ if needed. 

There are approximately 3,500 trials by jury in NZ every year. For each trail, more than 100 potential jurors are usually summonsed (depending on type of trial), from which will be chosen the actual jury. This means that around 350,000 jury summons are issued per year. 

Jury duty summonses are based upon the electoral role. With approximately 3,000,000 people on the roll, that means that everyone has greater than a 1 in 10 chance of being summonsed in any given year. However, only a small portion will actually be selected for jury service.

When the registrars are issuing summons for a trial, they first generate a list of people within 45km of the court. From that list, they eliminate anyone who obviously does not fit eligibility criteria according to their records. They then select the number of people they need for this particular trail, and send out a summons.

When you receive a summons, you are asked to respond to either confirm you will be there, or to ask for a deferral or to be excused. 

If you do not gain a deferral or excusal, and simply don't turn up on the day, you may be fined up to $1000.

Applications for deferral/excusal are not processed at each individual district court, but rather by two small teams of people in two locations. 

The ability to have a trail-by-jury is a right that is very important to a fair justice system. Of course, without a jury, there can be no trial-by-jury. Serving on a jury is one important way NZ citizens can serve their country and local community. 

Laws were changed a few years ago to tighten up on the requirement to attend jury duty when summonsed, as many people shirked this duty without real reason, and there were difficulties getting sufficient suitable jurors for trials. 

The summons will give a date and time you need to appear. This is usually a Monday or Tuesday morning. They tell you to be prepared to have to be available for the full week, though that will only happen if you are actually selected to serve on the jury. There will also be a number you can call the day before or that morning to check whether you still have to show up - sometimes the accused changes their plea or other events occur to cause a trail to be delayed or cancelled or to no longer require a jury.

On the day, you will be in a room with all the other people summonsed. Everyone's name will be in a ballot box, and names will be randomly chosen - those people will be called before the judge and lawyers one at a time. The lawyers may decline (challenge) people on certain grounds. The potential juror may also give the judge a reason why they cannot or should not serve on this jury. Each person who is not challenged or otherwise excused takes their place on the jury benches. This process continues until a full jury is selected, and everyone else is sent home. 

The jury is then empanelled, and the trial set to begin. Trials may last anywhere from one day to a full week, to multiple weeks for certain high-profile cases. 

While serving on a jury, you can apply for childcare payments, and are eligible for attendance fees from the courts, and may be able to claim transport costs. However, the way the childcare criteria are set up are based on an assumption that the children attend school during the day (if school age) etc. They generally don't fit well for the needs of a home educated family. It is possible to apply for additional child care costs over and above the standard ones, but I do not know whether they would be sufficient to meet the needs of a family with a number of children needing full time care while the parent serves on the jury (and the other one, if there is a second parent, is at work). It is also possible to apply for payments above the attendance fees where a family is unable to meet their reasonable commitments due to jury duty.

Anyone who fits any of the following criteria is automatically eligible to be excused:

• Lives more than 45km from the courthouse
• Is over 65 (can choose to serve if they wish, but are not required)
• Works in the justice sector - eg a lawyer, Corrections employee
• Has done jury duty in the last 2 years (this includes just showing up in response to a summons and not being selected)
• Has been sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years or more, or to preventative detention, or sentenced to 3 months or more within the last 5 years.
• Has already been excused from service by a judge for a period of time that has not yet expired.

The Ministry of Justice recognises that not everyone summonsed will be able to attend on the stated date. A deferral of service can be applied for by writing to them with information and proof of why you cannot attend then. Reasons for deferral must fit into one of the categories described in law, which are: 

• A special or pressing engagement for your business or job
• Your health or disability
• Family committments
• Other personal circumstances

When applying for a deferral, you must nominate dates during which you will be available, within the next 12 months and covering at least a four week period (other than mid Dec to mid Jan). If you don't nominate alternative dates, the court will assign them. Once a deferral has been granted and alternative dates nominated, they can't be changed. 

So long as you can give a reasonable reason, it is not difficult to gain a deferral the first time. However, there is a requirement that you will then be available during the deferred dates (unless something major and unforeseen comes up). If, however, you were previously deferred on the basis of home education, you should be able apply to be excused when the next summons comes up if you are unable to serve.

For a home educator whose circumstances are unlikely to change, it is probably better to apply to be excused rather than deferred. However, be aware that the law requires the registrars in the first instance to seek deferral rather than excusing applicants. Therefore you may have to be quite insistent if it's excusal you seek. 

You are legally required to do jury service. However, you can apply to be excused from jury service if you are unable to defer your service, or unable to perform your duties. 

When applying, you must give a reason for being excused, and provide evidence or proof to support that (except if over 65, have done jury duty in the last 2 years, or on the basis of imprisonment). 

Your reasons to be excused must fit into either one of the automatic categories listed above, or the category of being part of a religious order which does not believe in taking part in jury service, or one of the same categories listed for deferral. However, for the latter, you will need to also explain why this prevents you from simply deferring the jury service. 

A person who has been summonsed can apply to the registrar to be excused prior to the date of jury duty, or they can ask to put their application before the judge on the day. If an application to be excused is declined by the registrar, the applicant has the right to appeal directly to the judge.

More on how to apply for excusal below, but first what happened when we met with Ministry of Justice staff to discuss these issues:

In Feb 2017, myself and other representatives of NCHENZ met with Ministry of Justice staff in Wellington to discuss the issue of home educators and jury service. Some of the main points I raised with them may also be useful in preparing your own application for excusal, and were:

• Most home educators believe strongly in civic and community responsibility and duty. Many home educators serve their communities in various ways, as they are able, and if summonsed for jury duty would be happy to serve if at all possible. However, their duties as home educators and their individual situations sometimes make this difficult or impossible without undue hardship. 
• The legislation regarding reasons for deferral or excusal from jury duty are quite broad and non-specific, and it is up to the Registrar to interpret and apply this legislation to individual applicant’s circumstances. The acceptable reasons given for excusal are:
  1. the nature of that person's occupation or business, or of any special and pressing commitment arising in the course of that person's occupation or business:
  2.  that person's disability:
  3. that person's state of health, or family commitments, or other personal circumstances.

                   (See Juries Act 1981, Sections 14B and 15)

• “Home educator” IS the occupation of parents who are homeschooling their children. This unpaid but important role is regulated by legislation requiring parents to provide plans and evidence that satisfy the Ministry of Education that their children “will be taught as regularly and well as in a registered school.” Under MoE policy, there is an onus on the parent (usually the mother) to personally provide supervision and teaching to their children.
• Home education is also not a 9am-3pm, 5 days a week role. It is a 24/7 lifestyle. There are few, if any “days off,” and many home educating families have little support from relatives and friends.
• Home educators most often have a number of children of various ages in their care. These children may be in the midst of important study such as for their NCEA qualifications, or they may have special needs or high anxiety issues that make leaving them in the care of someone else difficult or inappropriate. In all cases, the delivery of the child’s education is dependent on the availability and commitment of the parents.
• Because of the above, I would contend that both the “nature of the person’s occupation,” the commitment that arises in the course of that occupation, as well as their “family commitments” are indeed reasonable grounds for excusal from jury duty. 

One Deputy Registrar had told a parent that “Homeschooling is not a reason for excusal under the legislation. You need to either provide deferral dates in the school holidays and arrange alternative childcare for your children, or arrange a substitute teacher for the time you are on jury service." So I pointed out:

• Home education is not structured according to school terms; learning goes on all year round. That aside, many families have no reasonable child care possibilities. Most childcare facilities are set up for pre-schooler or afterschool care only. Many families do not have extended family support. And, those things aside, no child-care provider could be reasonable expected to take on the actual education of the children during that time, meaning that the children are therefore forced to “miss school” by virtue of the absence of their only teacher.  
• There are no “substitute teachers” for home education, and if there were most parents could not afford to pay one. Even if it were possible, this would be disruptive to the children’s education as home education is highly individualised and not easily taken over by someone else. It would also be unreasonable to ask another home educator, already busy with the needs of their own children, to serve as “substitute” and thus disrupt the education of both families.

Further points:

• The legislation allows for an applicant’s jury service to be deferred or excused. Deferral is to a date within 12 months. This is not generally a reasonable course for home educators – their circumstances are very unlikely to change within a 12-month period, as the commitment to home educate is long term in most cases. 
• In summary, home educators have a specific and legislated commitment to personally ensure and supervise the learning of their children. They often do so with limited, if any, support or financial resources. To expect a home educator to put their children in the care of strangers and in so doing to disrupt their educational process while the parent performs jury duty is both impractical and unreasonable, as well as going against the strong personal convictions of many home educators.
    Being forced to attend jury service would cause home educating families financial hardship, as well as significant disruption and potentially long-lasting difficulties in trying to then overcome the flow-on affects from the disruption in education that may result.
    In the words of one home educator: “I find it frustrating that one government department says I must teach my children as regularly and well as if they were at school while another tells me I must put them in childcare while I do something else.”
• Because the law does not specifically refer to home education, interpretation has been left to individual registrars and their deputies. We propose that there should be some discussion around these issues, and then the creation of a national workable policy for those home educators who are unable, due to their circumstances, to serve.
• We would remind the Ministry of Justice that the total number of home educating families in NZ is 3062*. We are only talking about a small number of people needing to be excused from jury service. Of all home educated students, 77% of them are ages 6-13*, and cannot be legally left on their own.
  *Source: www.educationcounts.govt.nz

Ministry of Justice response:
The MoJ staff were receptive to what we were saying. We had some useful discussion around process, eligibility, and how to apply to be excused, most of which information is included in this article. 

There are application forms available on the MoJ website. Alongside of completing these, you need to provide details of why you believe you should be excused, and evidence or proof to support your reasons. 

The Ministry of Justice recommends you include as much pertinent information as possible. Details that may be relevant or have bearing on your application might include:

• Having a breastfed child in your care
• Having a child with high needs, disabilities, or severe anxiety problems that would make it unreasonable to leave them in someone else's care
• The ages of your children, inability to leave them on their own, and unavailablity of reasonable alternative care.
• Home education - your commitment to their educational needs, and the requirements of Section 21 of the Education Act.
• Other points mentioned above in our meeting. 
• Why deferral is not practical - ie how/why your circumstances are unlikely to be any different within 12 months.

Suitable proof or evidence to accompany your application might include:

• Birth certificates
• Exemption certificates
• Letter from a doctor or other relevant professional
• Letter of support from NCHENZ, your regional home educator's group or similar (to confirm your membership/involvement and home ed status and commitment)

The more revelvant information and proof you provide, the greater the liklihood that you will be excused. 
Ministry staff told us that they often recieve applications which basically say "I can't do it" with no information provided. Don't be that person. :-) 

While the courts have got tougher about jury duty, no one wants a jury member who is not able to fully concentrate and work for the system. A parent who is deeply worried about their children while they are at court is not a useful jury member. If you are truly not in a position to serve on a jury, and that is unlikely to change, then gather your information and apply to be excused.

​Remember: the registrar's first response will likely be to try and make it a deferral, and if they refuse to excuse you, you do have the right of appeal to the judge.

However, if you are in a position to make it work so you can do jury duty, then I would encourage you to do so. You could also make this a great topic study for your home educated students. :-) 

ERO (the Education Review Office) is charged under law with conducting review of home educating families, when requested to do so by the Ministry of Education. Under current government policy, up to 35 reviews per year are funded, and these are only requested on a complaints basis. 

This means that if someone (it could be anonymous) complains to the MoE that your child is not being suitably educated, then they may request an ERO review. For a while that was the automatic result, but now the MoE first investigates the complaint, by contacting the family concerned, letting them know of the complaint, and giving them the opportunity to respond. If the response is such that the MoE decides that there is no real reason to be concerned, they don't request an ERO review. Otherwise, they will. However, if this is a second complaint, and the first one did not result in and ERO review, the Ministry is inclined to go straight to ERO the second time.

The only other time that an ERO review is called for is if a declined exemption application is appealed, but that is quite a different process, not involving visiting the family, which I will address in another post.

I will also post separately about responding to complaints and preparing for reviews -  here, a brief look at the history and statistics of ERO reviews for home educators.

In 1989, under Lange's Labour Government, the Tomorrow's Schools education reform happened, and from it the 1989 Education Act was born. There was also a report known as the Picot Report (proper name "Administering for Excellence") which contained recommendations for what should be carried out. For our purposes here, the results were:

• 1989 introduction of the law requiring families who wished to home educate to apply for a long term exemption from enrolment from the Secretary of Education (Prior to this, parents approached their local school principal and asked for an exemption. The MoE had no idea of how many children were being home educated)
• Routine reviews of home educators by ERO began
• The supervision allowance was introduced

In 1994, National's then Minister of Education, Lockwood Smith, stopped routine reviews of home educators. Quoting from Craig Smith's "A Brief History of Home Education in NZ":
"In July 1994 Lockwood Smith stopped the regular reviews of HEs by the ERO. He stated that he could not justify the expense of Review Officers travelling all over the country to review one or two children, virtually all of whom were doing excellently. All ERO annual reports have stated that HEs are a very low-risk group. Lockwood may have had another motive for dropping the reviews: the regular reviews were actually being conducted outside the parametres of the Education Act, which only provided for two occasions when reviews could take place on HEs: when a problem with a specific HE family came to the MoE’s attention; and when the MoE turned down a parent’s application for exemption, and the parent requested a review."

In 1996, the MoE asked home educators to write a self-evaluation report in lieu of reviews. Some did, some refused. There was a huge national mobilisation of home educators against this idea (one of the few times the majority have managed to agree enough to move together), and it was short-lived.

In 1997, the National goverment was in coalition with NZ First (after the first ever MMP election). NZ First wanted greater accountability for home educators, and pushed for an amendment to the Education Act which made routine review of home educators legal, and then reintroduced routine reviews. 

In 2009, under the National government (no longer in coalition with NZF), routine reviews of home educators were again scrapped. Craig and Barbara Smith wrote:
Echoing then Minister of Education Dr Lockwood Smith in 1994, that he could not justify the expense of regular reviews on such a low-risk group as home educators, Chief Review Officer Graham Stoop wrote in February this year that reviews of home educators are not efficient or effective. Posted on the ERO website is the following: “From 1 July 2009 ERO will carry out reviews only when requested by the Secretary for Education, or in other particular circumstances.”
This is in line with the present central government’s drive to cut bureaucratic costs. Minister in charge of the ERO, Anne Tolley, said in February: “I have asked ERO to identify schools that are performing consistently well and, accordingly, from March 1, these schools will be exempt from the current three-yearly ERO reviews and will instead be reviewed every four to five years.”
In December 2008, the Finance Minister advised Cabinet to do a line-byline review of expenditure. Home Education reviews were found to account for $283,000 out of a total budget of $28,675,000 or 0.987% (less than 1%). Graham Stoop wrote: “This programme is considered to be low risk to the education priorities of the Government. In 2007/08 ERO completed 644 homeschooling reviews from a total of 6,169 homeschooled students [at an average cost of $439.44 per review]. ERO could not provide assurance that the terms of exemption were being met in only 35 of the 644 reviews [a 5.4% “failure” rate]. This has been the pattern over many years.”

Since that time, funding for up to 35 reviews per year has remained in place. The number of actual reviews conducted per year has varied. ERO's year runs 1st July-30th June, and the stats kept are on that basis. Number of reviews per year are shown in the table below. The funding is for the review of individual students, so a family with, say, 3 exempt students, if reviewed, would account for funding and statistics reflecting this number. Therefore, 4 reviews does not necessarily mean 4 families were reviewed. In the 2016/2017 year, 9 students were reviewed from 5 families.

Note that in early 2014, the National Council of Home Educators (NCHENZ) took up with the MoE the issue of automatically referring to ERO any complaint recieved, when the complaint may be completely baseless. As a result, they instituted the current practice of giving families an opportunity to address the complaint, and not automatically referring on. You can see this reflected in the drop in numbers of reviews subsequently.

Keep in mind that there are currently around 5,800 exempt students in NZ. On the most recent statistic, that means the chances of your child being reviewed in any given year are 9:5800, or about 0.1%, and half that if you use the previous 2 year's stats. Of course, if you happen to know you have family or "friends" who are opposed to homeschooling and are the sort to complain about you to the MoE, your odds would go up.

So, while it is valuable to know you have sufficient material to put together what you need if you do have an ERO review one day, this should not be the primary focus of your home education program, and should not be burdensome. 

Families are often afraid of the idea of an ERO review, and of course, if it happens, preparing for one does inevitably add stress. However, overall, most families report that it turned out to be a mostly positive experience, and it can be quite affirming to have a report that confirms your children "are being taught at least as regularly and well as in a registered school."

One more thing to note: ERO do NOT decide whether an exemption is to be revoked or not. They simply review and write a report which they send to the MoE. It is up to the MoE to then make decisions. If the review states the children ARE being taught as regularly and well, then the exemption continues with no further action. If it states that they are NOT, then the Ministry can choose either to revoke the exemptions, or to allow the family a period of time in which to address the areas of concern, after which another review may be conducted. 

I will be posting more articles about these things, but for now, if you would like to know your rights and how to prepare for an ERO review, see the excellent information on the NCHENZ website HERE.

Under law, a school aged student can only be enrolled with one "enrolment school." That school is responsible for all pastoral care of the student, overseeing their program and so forth. 

However, under certain circumstances, a student may be enrolled both with their local school, and also with Te Kura (the correspondence school) under what is referred to as "dual enrolment." This additional enrolment is for the purposes of providing supplementary curriculum and tution, which is generally broken down into two types of circumstances:

Curriculum adaptation - where the main school is not able to provide needed curriculum adaptation or special programs, such as for a gifted and talented student, one with special education needs, or one who is not progressing as expected. Sometimes dual enrolment is arranged via support from the Regional Health School for a student whose current health situation prevents them from attending school full time; this is usually a temporary arrangement.

Curriculum capability - where a smaller school cannot provide all the subjects for a full and balanced curriculum, and so students are enrolled with Te Kura for the extra subjects - this is often a language or similar. 

The criteria for dual enrolment is laid out in Section 4 of the MoE's enrolment policy HERE. 

Only dual enrolment between a school and Te Kura of a student who fits the criteria is government funded, and this is the normal definition of "dual enrolment."

A home educated student between 6 and 15 who has an exemption from enrolment (required to home educate officially) can also be enrolled with Te Kura for any number of courses on a fee-paying basis. This situation is also outlined under Section 4 of the enrolment policy document linked above. (Students 16 and over can enrol free).

The parents, who hold the exemption, remain wholly responsible for directing their child's education. They have simply chosen to purchase the tutition provided by Te Kura in the selected subjects. 

There is no minimum or maximum number of fee paying subjects which homeschoolers can enrol in at Te Kura, and the exemption is not affected. 

Under Section 25B of the Education Act, Principal's can release a student from school in order to attend suitable alternative tuition elsewhere. This is commonly used for students to do things like attend the Mind Plus workshops and so on. However, some principals use this discretion to allow families to teach their children at home on certain days of the week, or for a period of time. 

The wording of the Act is:
25B Release from school
​The principal of a State school--
(a) may, if satisfied that--
     (i) a student will receive outside the school tuition acceptable to the principal; and
   (ii) releasing the student would not result in a contravention of section 25(2),
—release the student from attendance at the school, for a period or periods agreed with a parent of the student, to receive the tuition (and, where appropriate, travel between the school and the place where the tuition is to be given)

The details are a matter of arrangement between the principal and the family. The ways this has been applied vary.

Any family making such an arrangement with the school would not have an exemption, not be "officially" home educating, and would not recieve the Supervison Allowance. 

The advantages of such an arrangement might include providing some relief to a student who is struggling to cope with the school environment, providing for their education temporarily while a school works to put better support in place, enabling parents to provide extension or tailored learning for the child, having students at home but not truant while the exemption process happens, or allowing parents to "sample" home education. 

However, this would not be the normal or typical situation/process. I include this information so that parents may decide whether to discuss the possibilities with their child's principal if circumstances warrant it.

The purpose of this post is to clarify home educator's ability to access the government funded 20 hours per week E.C.E services for their children under 6 years old. 

A frequent question asked by parents of young children is whether they will still be able to have their child attend an ECE with the 20 hour funding up until their 6th birthday, if they have gained an exemption to homeschool for them.

The answer is yes!
Because....the law only requires children to attend school from their 6th birthday. Therefore before that birthday there is nothing to be exempt from. So, even if you apply for the exemption while they are 5 and it is granted, it does not legally start until their 6th birthday. Therefore they remain eligible for the ECE funding, if you wish, up until their 6th birthday. 

As explained HERE, if your child is enrolled in school prior to the age of 6, and you then decide you wish to remove them, you can do so, without an exemption. Once you have removed them, they are once again entitled to the ECE funding up until their 6th birthday. The criteria is ONLY that they must be aged over 3 and under 6 and "not be [currently] enrolled in a registered school."

If this is your situation, you need to make sure that the school removes your child from the roll! That is not only so you can get the funding if you wish, but also because if they do not, under recent law changes, your child will be truant and there can be consequences. 

Remember: school and Ministry staff sometimes are confused about these things. If you are told that you a) can't remove your 5yo child from school, or b) that you cannot get ECE funding for a non-enrolled child who has briefly been at school, or who has an exemption, then try politely explaining the facts to them, and if that does not work, you may Contact Me for support. 

Te Kura, the Correspondence School, also has an Early Childhood program. It has it's own eligibility criteria though - the child must qualify under one of it's access gateways as set out on the Ministry's policy, and must be a domestic student. 

Assuming your child meets the criteria, they may use the Te Kura program as part of their ECE funded early childhood learning. A child can be dual-enrolled in Te Kura ECE program and a qualifying ECE centre, with the latter being for no more than 8 hours a week. 

With the recent passing of the Education (Update) Bill, the resulting changes of which will come into effect on 3rd July, there has been considerable discussion among home education groups about what effect this will have on parent’s ability to home educate their young children or the processes involved. 

The purpose of this post is to clarify what the changes do and don’t mean. 

Legislation and Links:
The current Education Act 1989 can be viewed online here: http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0080/latest/DLM175959.html?search=qs_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_education+act+1989_resel_25_h&p=1&sr=1

The Education (Update) Bill can be viewed online here:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2016/0160/latest/DLM6928611.html
In time, the amendments will be incorporated into the Act, but for now it is necessary to read them side by side to see the entirely of what a section will say once the updates come into effect. 

Ministry of Education's information regarding the Education (Update) Bill:
https://education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/regulatory-impact-statements/updating-the-education-act/ 

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

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