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

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

My reply sent today:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please let me know the outcome.

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

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

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

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

​

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post summarises the specific pieces of legislation being introduced or continued under the Education and Training Bill, which will become the new Act once enacted in parliament, which particularly affect Home Educators or may be of particular interest to them and other parents I talk to (not all home educators - some considering this as an option, or dealing with difficult circumstances). I intend to create another post about other pieces of legislation of importance to home educators. The Bill is huge, so this is not exhaustive, but an attempt to point out the key areas to be aware of, whether for reference, or to consider if you wish to include any of them in any submission on the Bill you may choose to make. The full Bill can be read here: 
​http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2019/0193/latest/LMS170676.html - you can use the table of contents 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.
• Sections in blue below are directly copied/pasted from the Bill. 
• I will highlight in red the word Submission at any points where I think parents may wish to consider whether they see the wording as problematic.
• Under each section in the Bill, 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 35 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.
• 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 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 42 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 Bill/Act

Also note Section 224 for offences/fines related to this. Fines can only be imposed upon conviction in a court of law. And Sections 228-229 set out related matters if such proceedings occur - such as the burden of proof being on the parents.​

Related: Section 60-64 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.

Note Section 225 for offences/fines related to attendance. Fince can only be imposed upon conviction in a court of law. And Sections 228-229 set out related matters if such proceedings occur - such as the burden of proof being on the parents.

This 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. 

Submission? Of concern is subsection 1(b) which 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 32 and 33 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 45, 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. I've written HERE about issues with the wording of the Bill. PLEASE make a Submission if you agree with me!

37Long-term exemptions from enrolment
(1) The Secretary may, on application by a parent of the student, grant the parent a certificate that exempts the student from the requirements of section 34 if the Secretary 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) An exemption certificate granted under this section must state why it was granted.
(3) The Secretary may revoke an exemption certificate.
(4) However, the Secretary may revoke an exemption certificate 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).
(5) If the Secretary thinks any student to whom an exemption certificate applies to would be better off if receiving special education, the Secretary may revoke the certificate and issue a direction under section 36.
(6) An exemption certificate expires when the person to whom it applies turns 16 or enrols at a registered school, whichever happens first.
(7) A certificate continues in force until it is revoked or expires.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 21

This section deals with "Early Leaving Exemptions". I've written about this specifically HERE and HERE - and proposed a possible Submission.

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, and they cannot be renewed or extended
• 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.
​Parents who have concerns about the wording or time limits on these segments might like to consider a submission

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 44, which allows the Secretary to direct these children to be enrolled in a distance school (ie Te Kura). Section 220 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 43 to exempt a student for up to 5 days if the absence is "justified."

Section 46 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 47 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 223 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.

These sections deal with parent's right to have their children excluded from religious or health curriculum teaching on various grounds. 

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. 

Also note Section 221 for offences/fines related to this.

These sections set out restrictions on religious instruction in all State schools (which includes all state-integrated schools). How the reader views these restrictions will depend on your own particular philosophy around this, but I include it here for those who will find it of interest. 

There were no such restrictions under the 1989 Act. 
To summarise the main points:

• A school board may determine that their buildings can be used for the purpose of religious instruction or observances in a manner they approve
• Any classroom or school as a whole may be closed during the school day for a total aggregate maximum of 60 mins per week, but not exceeding a total of more than 20 hours in a school year, for the purposes of religious instruction or observances conducted by voluntary instructors approved by the board 
• Additional time may be approved by the Minister if the majority of the school's parents want it, and the additional religious instruction is not detrimental to the normal curriculum of the school
• Students can only attend religious instruction if their parents have confirmed in writing that they wish them to take part or attend
• Teachers may be released for up to 30 mins a week to take part in the school's religious instruction and observance, but they cannot be in any way influenced to do so

See also Section 93, which states that all teaching in state (and state integrated) primary and intermediate schools must be secular.

The rights of preservation of the special character of some state integrated schools is set out in Schedule 6 (so a Christian school can, for example, still include religious examples etc in their general teaching and instruction, and has the right to preserve the special character of the school, including religious instruction and observances that may be part of their usual program).

Those concerned about these restrictions may wish to make a submission. 

Note that much of the wording of the Bill about this was borrowed from the 1964 Education Act. Also, there is no wording around restrictions on religious instruction or observance in secondary schools. 

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 32.

Section 67 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 37 exemption (ie homeschoolers). This does not preclude the Minister from setting the fees at $0 as is currently the case for 16-19yos.

This section gives the Secretary power to direct that a student be enrolled in a specific school (including distance school), after consulation with parents, the school board, and the chief executive of relevant organisations. This can be used in a number of different ways, including overriding enrolment schemes under Section 71, or getting an excluded student enrolled into another school etc.

These sections deal with stand-down, suspension, exclusion or expulsion of a domestic student from a state school or state-integrated school. 

These sections cover a range of matters. Of particular possible interest:

• Section 86 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.
• The board of a state school must consult at least every two years with the school community about the content of the health curriculum (Section 87)
• Section 93 states that all teaching in state primary and intermediate schools must be secular.

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."

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 230 sets out related offences/fines.
Also note Section 593 (in Bill or below) which states powers of entry into a premise where an unregistered private school is suspected of being.

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. 

There are massive changes happening within the tertiary and vocational sector! These are not brought about by the new legislation, but rather the new legislation is written to support those changes that have been decided upon, but which parents should be aware of. Including:

• Regional polytechnics will not longer be independant entities, but become subsidiaries of the new over-arching New Zealand Institute Skills and Techology (NZIST) (Sections 300-322) 
• Industry Training Organisations will be replaced by Workforce Development Councils (Sections 351-363 cover this and Apprenticeships etc)
• NZQA and TEC will continue

This part of the legislation covers everything from the registration of private training establishments, to the rules around NZIST, WDCs, NZQA, TEC, student loans and allowances, student fees, apprenticeships etc etc. 

It also sets out the objectives of the tertiary education system, some of the wording of which is significant and may be useful:

233 Objectives of Part 4(1) The objectives of this Part are to foster and develop a tertiary education system that--
(a) fosters, in ways that are consistent with the efficient use of national resources, high-quality learning and research outcomes, equity of access, and innovation; and
(b) contributes to the development of cultural and intellectual life in New Zealand; and
(c) responds to the needs of learners, interested persons or bodies, and the nation, in order to foster a skilled and knowledgeable population over time; and
(d) contributes to the sustainable economic and social development of the nation; and
(e) strengthens New Zealand’s knowledge base and enhances the contribution of New Zealand’s research capabilities to national economic development, innovation, international competitiveness, and the attainment of social and environmental goals; and
(f) provides for a diversity of teaching and research that fosters, throughout the system, the achievement of international standards of learning and, as relevant, scholarship.(2) The Minister, TEC, and NZQA must take these objectives into account when making decisions under this Part.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 159AAA
Of particular interest to home educators is the rules around enrolment.....

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. 

This section sets out the powers of the Education Review Office. 434 (3) states specifically the application to exempt home educated students:
434 (3) Sections 439 to 442 apply in relation to education services provided to persons who are exempted from the requirements of section 34; and, for the purposes of this subsection and sections 439 to 442, education service is to be construed in that context and the meaning it has in the definition of the term applicable service in section 10 does not apply.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 324

Sections 439-442 sets out the specific provisions concerning students with enrolment exemptions (note they do not have power or entry into a private home):

439 Functions of Chief Review Officer
The 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 34 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 on the education services provided to persons exempted from the requirements of section 34 that the Minister requires.Compare: 1989 No 80 s 328A

440 Review officers
Review officers designated under section 436 are also review officers for the purposes of section 439, and sections 441 and 442 apply to them accordingly.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 328B

441 Powers of review officers for purposes of section 439(1) 
For the purposes of enabling any functions of the Chief Review Officer to be performed for the purposes of section 439, 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

442 Review officers to prove identity before acting under section 441
Every review officer who exercises any power under section 441 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

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):

593 Entry where private school suspected of being unregistered
(1) A person who holds an authorisation under section 592(3), and who has reasonable cause to believe that any premises are being used as a private school in contravention of section 230, 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 230.
(4) A warrant issued under subclause (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 subclause (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 230.
(6) A person acting under a warrant issued under subclause (3) must retain the warrant and must show 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

There are other areas where one could make a submission, but this has been an attempt to draw the reader's attention to key areas of the Bill, as well as provide a future useful reference to the legislation. I recommend to families that they become familiar with the above sections, because you never know when you might need it! Also consider any areas where they see issues worth of submission. 

Comments and questions welcome. 
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; nothing in this or any other entry on my website should be considered to constitute legal advice. I am a citizen with a special interest in home education and this is my attempt to help other families become better informed.

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. :-) 

2020 NB: Please see my updated post on this matter HERE, as new legislation has come into effect. This original post remains here FYI.

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.