Proposed legislation before parliament would give the Secretary of Education unfettered power to set any regulations they may desire for home education, and the ability to revoke exemptions for non-compliance. On Saturday, the Education Minister said on national television that "The thing that sparked this urgent work on our part to protect children was the Gloriavale cases and the fact that ERO wrote to me with serious concerns." 

Let me unpack for you what the "Gloriavale cases" really are, how the ERO used them to create a false narrative about home education, and in the process destroyed all trust that any home educator can have in ERO or potentially the Secretary of Education, and what that means for all home educators going forward. 

In 2023, the ERO carried out a "special review of education provision at Gloriavale" - looking at the school, students doing Te Kura, and those few families who had begun homeschooling in 2022. They visited with a sampling of 3 families, did not do individual full reviews, and had positive comments in their report about the families visited, but recommended to themselves that they needed to do a full review process for each individual child. 

In 2024, the ERO reviewed every homeschooling child at Gloriavale, conducting 96 reviews across some 30 families. They found the vast majority to be being “taught at least as regularly and well as.” A few – 11 students from 7 families – did not completely meet this standard. Some were as regularly but not as well as, and some were neither. While the Chief Review Officer does have the power to decide to do reviews at their own behest, this is the first time, ever, that I'm aware of that they did this. Reviews are normally done when requested by the Ministry as the result of a complaint. 

I, in my role as a home education consultant, was invited to visit Gloriavale to work with these families, which I did, spending a week staying there, reviewing their learning programmes, discussing ways in which improvements could be made, and so on. Subsequently each of these families met with Ministry staff and were able to satisfy them regarding the changes they were making or their learning programme in general and permitted to continue homeschooling. This is a normal part of review follow up - that families have an opportunity to provide further information to the Ministry if they "failed" the review, and the Ministry decides whether they are satisfied the family is able to continue teaching the child "at least as regularly and well as."

​In July of 2025, the ERO published their latest “Special Review Report of Education Provision within the Gloriavale Community” and noted that “The large majority of children receiving education through home-schooling are taught at least as regularly and well as in a registered school.”

In September of 2025, only two months later, the Secretary of Education, at the same time as considering closing the school at Gloriavale, apparently decided she wanted to consider revoking all the exemptions of students at Gloriavale. In order to do this, she needed to consider ERO reviews of families. The reviews concluded and publicly reported on only a few months prior would not have supported such a decision. In asking ERO to conduct new reviews, the Secretary stated in her letter to Nicholas Poole “I have concerns about the quality of the home education for multiple home educating families in the Gloriavale community, specifically around the suitability of the learning environment in which home education occurs.” 

To make determinations about the home environments of home educated students is outside of the ERO’s scope – they are to determine only whether the student is TAUGHT at least as regularly and well as. Notably, the ERO has no right of entry into home educator’s homes under the law (s468 (2)), and therefore the home is not an essential part of the review. However, the Gloriavale families acted in good faith and allowed reviewers into their homes. If they had not, none of what followed would have been possible. 

Of the teams of reviewers who went to Gloriavale (3 teams of 2 people) only one individual reviewer had ever conducted a homeschooling review before. The others were completely unfamiliar, and expressed how rushed and unprepared they felt to several families. Reviewers also told families they “weren’t interested in academics” and proceeded to ask questions about bathrooms, kitchens, water etc. 

These reviews also completely skipped three normal steps in homeschooling reviews - the Ministry did not first notify families of "concerns" and provide them with an opportunity to comment, ERO did not ask the families to complete their now-usual pre-review questionnaire and provide background information or other evidence they might choose to, and ERO refused to give families post-review feedback on what the outcomes were likely to be - all normal practice in usual home education reviews. 

It’s important to note that in this review, there were 104 children from 28 families, and a good number of them do not live at Gloriavale at all. Some live at Lake Brunner in individual homes. One family has lived outside of Gloriavale for around 5 years, and in Christchurch for some time – they only occasionally visit the community because of family who are still there, and told this to ERO before the review date was confirmed, but were treated the same as everyone else. Even within the main Gloriavale complex, some of the families are in the hostels, and a number live in separate homes. 

​They also asked questions about safety plans of people both in their own homes and wider community, including those of people unconnected to the family being reviewed  – information that is again out of scope, and especially so because these are arrangements managed by Oranga Tamariki, who were satisfied with the situation. In addition, this means that the ERO was asking families to provide private information about other people, which they felt compelled to do. The ERO is not qualified to investigate or make determinations on welfare matters. There is a difference between incidentally noting something of concern and referring it on, and deliberately hunting for, and misrepresenting, anything they can manage to label “concerning.” 

Some of these families were very new to homeschooling, having been home educating for as little as 3 months at the time of the reviews. The most experienced home educators had only been homeschooling since 2022. It is inappropriate for a review to be done so early on, and indeed the ERO has come back and said they could not make a determination as a result for those children who are only newly exempt. Nevertheless, they have put families through the reviews and required detailed responses prior to informing them they could not reach a determination. 

When the ERO sent the families the draft reports in December of 2025, they found EVERY single child to be “not being taught at least as regularly and well as.” Considering the opposite was true only a year earlier, this is statistically impossible. 

Later, the ERO “proactively released” to each family their files of “evidence," which were passed on to me by the families to review. It is clear in there that most of the families should have passed the reviews – and that the findings in many of the cases by the reviewers were entirely positive,  but then the moderators have changed all findings to negative, in every case – with reasons as flimsy as, in one case “report too positive.” Or by claiming that the evidence in the file doesn’t support the findings – which if that is the case it is a failure of the reviewers to include sufficient documentation to back up their clear and considered findings, not of the families, who it should be noted, were not asked to provide anything that was missing as would normally be the case in such as situation. 

It was also clear that reviewers had added things to families’ files that had nothing to do with those families or their homeschool programmes – eg how many paper towels were in a public restroom not used by a family, or how clean the clothes of a community member they encountered within the complex was. In some instances, based upon information shared with me, they made completely false statements in the files which do not align with the facts of the family under review. 

In the case of one family, who use a former ECE centre as their personal classroom, the reviewers were so hung up on the fact that there was a home-made bow with suction-cup arrows on a shelf, and a microwave at a level reachable by children, that they couldn't seem to focus on much else, making a big deal of these "safety issues" in the review notes. 

Most of the families conduct Progressive Achievement Testing, because ERO had previously suggested to them that they do so. About half of them are using a well-recognised, structured learning programme with external moderation of assessments. Nearly all of them are using well known curriculum of various types with built in assessment. Yet no matter what the families presented, the ERO could not be satisfied, claiming in nearly every instance that they couldn’t be certain that the children were achieving at a level appropriate to their age; it was evident that this was largely because the reviewers, being unfamiliar with home education, simply didn’t, or didn't want to, understand the different assessment options or know how to compare them to state education. This is a failing of the reviewers, not the home educators. Where there were PATs, in some instances they complained that there weren’t multiple annual ones for new students, or those not old enough to have done them the previous year. 

We (Barrister Douglas Brown and I) raised concerns about the way in which the reviews had been conducted with the Secretary and Chief Review Officer and asked to meet with each of them, and were refused several times. Eventually the CRO decided to conduct an internal review, which then led to an external one, the report of which is complete hogwash. It was written by consultants who understand nothing of home education requirements or reviews, and appears to be nothing more than an attempt to justify themselves doing whatever they wanted to. Mr Brown also raised concerns personally with the Minister. 

Families put together their own evidence and information to send ERO in response to the draft reports, totalling over 3,500 pages collectively. ERO took weeks to review these, and sent reports to family claiming they had made changes to the reports in response. However, the ERO only changed, in the main, 1-4 words per report, and kept their conclusions to “not as regularly and well as” in every child’s report.

The final reports have been sent to the Ministry, who have not yet progressed to the next step of providing families with an opportunity to comment, before making any decision on the exemptions. However, under existing legislation, the Ministry has the power to revoke the exemptions of all of those children, with no right of appeal. 

My point is not to defend Gloriavale. They have their own issues, and there are multiple government agencies working closely with families there. However, this should not be about Gloriavale. It is about individual families who have chosen to home educate, and should be entitled to the same due and fair process as any other home educator, to appropriately assess whether or not their children are being "taught as regularly and well as they would be in a registered school."

Yet these reviews appear, in my view, to be nothing more than an orchestrated plan to provide the Secretary with what ERO believed she wished for – an excuse to revoke the exemptions – even though this required the ERO to act outside of the scope of their established process and the law, and to effectively "falsify" findings.

Off the back of these reviews, the Minister is now trying to ram through legislation, without consultation, that would give the Secretary unconstrained power to impose any reporting, assessment or other requirements they so choose upon all home educators in the name of "protecting children." And the power to revoke exemptions even if ERO finds the children "are being taught as regularly and well as" simply because the Secretary is not satisfied as to compliance with imposed regulations. 

​Even if it were true that Gloriavale home educators were not being taught as regularly and well as, to use them as an excuse to make assumptions about all home educating families is unconscionable. Would any reasonable person suggest that Gloriavale is an example of NZ communities in general, and the homeschooling community in particular? 

And besides, if the ERO and the Secretary can get away with doing this to one group of home educators, what is to stop them targeting any other group in the future? Whether that's a particular faith or ideologically based group, those who live in a certain area, those who live in caravans, or whatever the case may be. 

Years ago, leading home educators used to urge families not to have ERO reviews in their homes, because reviewers were known to make assumptions based upon what they see even as they walk up the garden path. Over the years, with reviews being much more infrequent, and, let's face it, it being more convenient to have them come to our homes in most instances, where we have everything at the ready to show them, most families have allowed them to do so. 

But no more! The ERO have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, and should never, ever be permitted to conduct reviews in families' homes again. And, such reviews should be video recorded by families. It is also going to be very hard for families to have any faith in reviews being conducted on a fair and reasonable basis.  

Likewise, we can have no trust that the Secretary (either this or future ones) will impose only reasonable regulations. That may be the current intent, but we have no guarantees. Besides, existing legislation already provides the means to add additional, reasonable accountability for home educators. These new, sweeping powers are not needed. 

Which is why the proposed amendment (Amendment Paper 583, sections 5F and 51A) to the Education and Training (System Reform) Bill MUST be removed, or at the very least, send to Select Committee for proper consultation. 

Please continue to write to MPs about this legislation. Meet with or have a phone conversation with your local MP if you can. You would be surprised how many of them know nothing about any of this, or about homeschooling matters at all. You can help change that! 

You can sign this petition. 

There is rally at parliament being organised for this week - what out for more information in the home education Facebook groups online. 

The Bill is likely to go through its 3rd reading this week when parliament sits, between Tuesday and Thursday. So time is short. Actions need to happen NOW. And then hope and pray that this proposed amendment is defeated. 

The Education Minister just introduced the first significant change to home education legislation since 1989 - without consultation, without supporting information, and without so much as a heads up, despite attempts to meet with her since November last year. And they are a doozy - introducing mandatory reporting and assessment for home educators, and opening the doors for them to include any other regulations they choose. Let's take a closer look....

Yesterday, the Education Minister, Erica Stanford, put out a press release about amendments to the Education and Training Reform Bill, listing matters to do with the Teaching Council. Tucked right at the bottom of the release was this statement:

Two further proposals support the learning and wellbeing of students in homeschooling and school hostels:

• Establishing clearer requirements for home education, including regulatory conditions to maintain exemptions from school enrolment.

What does that mean? Where is the information? I had to go digging, but in an Amendment Paper - which means it was made AFTER the Select Committee process on the Bill itself, bypassing public consultation - there are these two sections:

This means that the Secretary of Education can announce requirements for home educating families to produce reports at any frequency (annually? twice yearly? each term? each day? who knows), in a format and with the content that they require, AND that they can require our students to complete assessments of a nature and frequency that they determine. 

It also opens the door for this or any future government to add any other regulations they so choose. More on that below. 

AND that they can potentially revoke the exemptions of any students for whom the families refuse to comply. 

There has been chatter on and off for some time about whether or not home educators should have more accountability of some sort, and what that might look like. I have expected something to happen sooner or later. Knowing this Minister had such thoughts on her mind, I, as Government Liaison for NCHENZ, requested a meeting with her in November last year. Included in my request was this statement: "We are aware that you are considering matters such as the supervision allowance, outcomes and accountability and feel it is vital that we are able to meet with you and present relevant information for your consideration." ​ It took two months for them to tell me they were considering it, then on the 1st of April I received this email from the National Office of the Ministry:

"The Minister has forwarded your meeting request to me to respond to. I am the Senior Policy Manager of the Learning Support Policy team at the Ministry of Education, and my team has policy responsibility for home education. I understand that you were interested in meeting with Minister Stanford to discuss matters related to home education. We have started thinking about some of the topics you have raised. This work is still in development, and we are not in a position to discuss this with you at this time. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you later in the year to hear your perspectives and feedback once our work is further developed."

Clearly this was not in the initial thinking stages as implied by the email. Both the Minister and her team and the national office have the contact details for myself and NCHENZ, and know that NCHENZ is the national representative body of home educators. Yet they did not even inform us of this massive change, let alone provide opportunity for consultation. 

And by introducing the changes via an Amendment Paper, they have bypassed the original announcement of the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill which included a Select Committee process and public consultation. 

As I was writing up this post, I received an email from the Ministry, from the same person who told me last month that they were only "started thinking" about these matters, which says that after the Bill is passed, they "will consult the home education sector on the development of the regulations to ensure the new requirements are workable." 

While I appreciate the opportunity to consult on the specifics IF this becomes law, it does not change the fact that there should have been consultation BEFORE putting it into law. 

I also have no confidence that they will consult in good-faith around the specifics, given the underhanded and undemocratic way they have introduced these amendments while refusing to meet with us, implying a lack of desire or intent to truly engage in meaningful consultation. 

Some might argue that home educators in general do not have sufficient accountability. So why are these proposed amendments an issue? Let me lay out some of the problems:

1) These changes have been introduced into Section 38 (the long-term exemptions) part of the Education and Training Act, making them mandatory conditions on all home educators in order to maintain an exemption. Under Section 566 of the Act, which is the basis upon which the MoE is able to pay home educators the Supervision Allowance, the Minister already has the right to impose whatever conditions they wish upon the allowance - currently they require the signing of a declaration, but they could have required some form of reports or similar in order to get the allowance. However, then parents would have some choice in the matter - they could not do the reports and not get the allowance, or not do the assessments and not get the allowance, if those were the conditions. By putting it in Section 38, no one can make that choice. More on that in a moment. 

2) Reports - in whatever manner, form and frequency they may dictate - take time. Time is something most home educators already lack, as we pour our efforts into raising, nurturing and educating our children. And who are these reports for? The idea of reports was already discussed in meetings with the Ministry and ERO only a very few years ago and dismissed because of the resourcing it would require for them to handle, read and store such reports. However, this Minister has said in previous comments that this isn't a problem with AI, implying that the reports will likely be scanned by AI and then handled in whatever fashion they deem fit. So, we are expected to put in our time and effort to write reports that likely will not be read by another human - meaning little effort on their end. 
​
Plus, since there has been no consultation, no discussion, not direct information, no discussion papers etc - we have no idea just what the Minister is expecting or wanting here, and how overbearing or otherwise it will be. 

3) Assessments - again, without any information, we have no idea what kind of assessments or how often will be expected. If we use what is currently required in schools as a gauge, that might look like phonics testing in the first year of school, and twice-yearly reading/writing/math assessments in primary school.  Schools can choose from e-asTTle or Progressive Assessment Tests (PATs). However, for home educators to access those currently there are costs involved. 

That does not address the fact that there are a significant number of home educating families with disabled or neurodiverse children, many of whom cannot cope with exams or assessment type pressures. Many of these (and other) families are homeschooling specifically so their children are not required to undergo these assessments. 

4) In the case of both reports and assessments, we do not know what they would do if we did do them in some fashion, but the results were not what they want to see. Would that invoke an ERO review with a view to cancelling the exemption, simply because a child is not (yet) achieving at a prescribed level or doesn't do well in a certain type of assessment which does not actually reflect their abilities? 

5) Opens the door to any other regulations - a key consideration is 640A 2(e) which says the regulations may...provide for any other matter necessary for the administration of section 38. This leaves the way entirely open for this or any future government to impose yet more regulations - for example, what's to stop them saying all home educators must follow the state curriculum? Or all home educators must have annual evaluations/reviews? Or all home educators must submit samples of their children's work to the local school principal? Minister Stanford herself suggested that last one at a public meeting before the last election. 

This one is VERY important - as it means that any additional requirements or changes can be made simply by writing a regulation, unchecked by Parliament or parliamentary process. 

6) An exemption from the requirement to be enrolled in school removes us and our children from the school system. This is very like imposing the school system upon us. 

By law, parents have a right to decide "where, and how, their child is to be educated" - and thus we have the right to choose home education. At the same time, our child has a right to an education - which is why we have exemption applications, to ensure that we have a plan to teach our child "at least as regularly and well as they would be in a registered school."

Does that mean that there should not be any follow up to ensure "as regularly and well as" is actually happening? No, I would not argue that. The majority of home educators are doing an excellent job of ensuring their children are educated, using whatever approach they have chosen. There are, however, likely to be a few families that are not doing a good job, in part because there is no accountability - the likelihood of an ERO review has been remote for many years. 

The ability to conduct ERO reviews of home educators remains in the law. Not doing them routinely has been a matter of funding/resourcing. At least with ERO reviews, one can potentially present a diverse range of approaches to home education, and still satisfy the "as regularly and well as" criteria. Imposing set assessments, however, is very much a one-size-fits-all approach that absolutely will not fit many students and families. 

7) The Supervision Allowance is a token amount paid to home educators who elect to receive it. It has not been meaningfully reviewed or adjusted since it was introduced in 1990, which means it has significantly lost value in the meantime. The Minister has not provided any information suggesting that the allowance will be adjusted to take into account both inflation over 30 plus years AND the added workload she is intending to require of home educators. After all, while teachers are required to write reports and carry out assessments, they are paid a salary to do so!

8) Perhaps most importantly, the proposed regulations are entirely inequitable, and not just financially. The ERO review system has always been inequitable - no school would have a review and potentially be closed because of one "failed" review - they would be told what needed to improve, be given time and support to improve it, and then have another review in 1,3 or 5 years. Home educators can have one ERO review that finds their child is "not being taught as regularly and well as" and have their exemptions revoked. Now they are wanting to slap on reports and assessments on the basis that if the Secretary is not satisfied that they have been complied with, the exemptions can be revoked! Again, highly inequitable. 

This places enormous, unreasonable pressure on families, not just to comply with the requirements, but to "get it right" under threat of having their children being forced to attend school instead.  

They would not be able to revoke exemptions because of one missed report or assessment - but they could use that as grounds to invoke an ERO review, and on the basis of how the proposed law is written, even if ERO finds the student "is being taught as regularly and well as", the Secretary could still revoke the exemption on the basis of non-compliance!!

The Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill (the Bill) passed its Second Reading on 14 May and is now due to progress to the Committee of the whole House stage. 

Today, ahead of the Committee of the whole House debate, the Government introduced an Amendment Paper which proposes further changes to the Bill for consideration by the House. The Amendment Paper proposes strengthening the oversight of home education by requiring home educating families to meet specific requirements prescribed in regulations to maintain their exemption from enrolment in a registered school.

The proposed changes include a new power to make regulations that will set out what needs to be done to maintain an exemption. The regulations will provide specific requirements around the regularity and content of reporting and may also include other requirements such as assessment. These changes are proposed to come into effect on 1 July 2027.

At this stage, there are no changes to home education requirements until the Bill is passed. The Bill must be considered by the Committee of the whole House (due to take place this week) and then will need to pass Third Reading before it receives Royal Assent, at which point the Bill becomes law.

After that, the Ministry would work on deciding what the specific requirements are, which would become regulations to be put into effect in July next year. The Amendment alone does not introduce these regulations - but opens the way for them to be introduced. 

That means that TODAY and THIS WEEK are the time to take action if you are opposed to these amendments!

This Bill is being put forth by the National Party. It is already being opposed by the Greens and Labour. If ACT oppose it in Parliament, then I understand the whole Bill will go nowhere. Or if ACT opposes certain sections or amendments, they will not go through. 

Each family should write to following people, in order of importance:

• Their geographically nearest National MP (if your MP is not a National one, write to the closest one)
• Laura McClure - ACT list MP and Education Spokesperson - [email protected]​
• Andy Foster - NZ First list MP and Education Spokesperson - [email protected]
• The Minister of Education - [email protected]
• Their local MP (if not already covered by above)
• The Ministry of Education - [email protected]

The list of current MPs is here: Members of Parliament - New Zealand Parliament - when you click on one you'll be taken to a page which includes their info and contact details. 

Things to cover in your letters:

• That you are writing in regard to Amendment Paper 583 on the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill, in particular parts 5F and 51A
• That you OPPOSE the Amendment and why
• That you object to the lack of consultation
• That the method of introducing the Amendment was undemocratic because it bypassed the Select Committee completely.
• Concern that the amendment opens the way for the introduction of any unchecked, un-consulted additional regulations which may burden families and interfere with their day-to-day homeschooling. 
• If you wish, share the effect that such requirements for reporting and/or assessment would have on your family and children
• That you urge the MP (if applicable) to oppose the Amendment in Parliament

My own draft letter may serve as a template - be sure to personalise. You can download it here:
Draft example MP letter 
​
If you have family and friends who are supportive of or interested in home education, or who are no longer home educating so may not see this post, please share it with them and urge them to also write letters to the above people. 

I also urge the leaders or representatives of groups to write on behalf of those groups. In addition to writing to the people set out above, for groups only, please also write to:

• Dr Parmjeet Parmar - ACT List MP who is on the Education and Workforce Select Committee (and is former Chairperson of the Select Committee)
• Katie Nimon - National MP and current chairperson of the Education and Workforce Select Committee

In addition to the points above, groups can also write about:

• The reason there have been few reviews is because homeschooling has generally been so successful that there has been little need for widespread reviews. 
• Home educators are successful and contributing members of society who overwhelmingly have successful outcomes in their education, especially when compared to state or private schools. 
• If the government believes they do not have data to support this, they should do what the Ministry did in the 2013-2015 review of homeschooling, and that is have NZQA collate data on cohorts of now adult former home educators, and see how many have achieved each possible level of qualification on the framework, and compare it to parallel cohorts of state educated students. Numbers for Levels 1-3 may be lower as they don't take into account alternative qualification options that home educators often pursue for university entrance, but numbers for higher levels should paint a useful picture of the overall success of home education. 

It is up to each individual and group to decide if they will respond to this call to action. If we do nothing, then we must accept the consequences. The last time I put out such a call to action was upon the introducing of the Education and Training Bill in 2020 - where they had left out a right of appeal if applications are declined. Home educators took action, and the result was that a very large proportion of all submissions on that Bill was from home educators, with a successful outcome! 

They have skipped the opportunity to submit, so writing letters is our main option to urge the dropping of these amendments. And if we don't act NOW, the opportunity will be gone. 

Should the Amendments end up in law, then that will be the time to work with the Ministry around the particulars, but right now is the time to oppose it in its entirety.