Most of you may have seen THIS news article this week, in which two Northland principals made statements about the need for greater review of homeschooling families. This article may distress some folk, or generate more rumors about what is going to happen. There will also no doubt be a lot of strong feelings about the "cheek" of principals pointing fingers at homeschoolers when it's been clearly demonstrated that the school system is failing miserably in providing children with effective teaching and learning. Claims that kids returning to school are behind are lacking in credibility or substance - every week I work with families taking their kids out of school who are demonstrably way behind where they should be, and it's at home that they make much more progress than they were making in school.

I could write lots of articles with numerous examples of real families and how the school system has let them down, and how much better they've done at home. I could also give lots of example of kids who have been homeschooled for many years and then entered the school system where they've been incredibly successful. There's little point, though, in playing games of tit for tat. If you do want to read some homeschool success stories, though, start HERE.

​And if you want to know more about how home education programmes are currently monitored, see HERE

In regards to the news article, I want you to know the following:

• This article was not a surprise to us. NCHENZ and I were aware it was in the works the week prior, and the gist of it, though not the exact content. And it was also inevitable that something like this would come up with the recent growth in home education, which has taken most of the state sector by surprise.
• All they're really calling for in the article is a return of routine ERO reviews. You can read more about the history of those reviews HERE 

Does this article mean that the govt will immediately bring back ERO reviews? No. There is a process to that. It would require a policy amendment, and the assignment of a good chunk of money - usually that would be something that they would consider in the Budget rounds, not on the spur of the moment. Remember, they stopped doing ERO reviews because they could not justify the expenditure when so few families were found to not be doing an excellent job. 

Would a return to regular ERO reviews be a bad thing? Not necessarily. Some kind of accountability is, generally speaking, a good thing - all of us tend to lift our game when we know we're accountable to someone. For example, a few years ago I decided to set a personal goal to grow 1000kg of produce in my back yard within 12 months. I set up a blog in which to share progress reports and photos and updates because I know myself well enough to know that when I tell people about what I'm trying to achieve, I will do better at making a consistent effort towards it. While nothing bad was going to happen to me if I did not reach my goal, just having that outside "scrutiny" helped motivate me to keep going when it got tough. 

However, there are a few things wrong with ERO reviews as they stand in terms of their usefulness in improving outcomes for our children, which is, after all, the main point:

• The way reviews are currently structured is that they result in a report that you are or are not "teaching your child at least as regularly and well as..". That report goes to the Ministry, who, in theory, can, if the outcome was "are not", summarily revoke your exemption. Not that they always do - there is space to discuss how you will improve things and be allowed to keep going. However, the mere fact that this can happen, makes the whole process very intimidating, which does not bring out the best in anyone, and may result folk being unable to present themselves as well or accurately as they would under other circumstances. 
• ERO's reviews of schools have a different focus - they are deliberately intended these days to help schools find areas where they need to improve, and then giving them space and support to do so. The wording on the website is: "Reviews of schools are focused on continuous improvement through strengthening the capability of schools in identifying priority areas for improvement, including the effectiveness of engagement with whānau, Iwi and the wider communities." Schools are not under threat that one bad review will close the school. This means that schools and home educators are not being reviewed on an equal basis. 
• Currently, reviews of home educators only happen on a complaints basis - so they're going in because there is, theoretically, a problem. This naturally adds tension and a degree of bias to the review. 
• Because so few reviews happen each year, most reviewers are very unfamiliar with home education as a whole, though the ones I've spoken to are supportive in general. Years ago when reviews were first routine, it took quite some time until the few reviewers who focused on home education reviews became familiar with home education in all it's shapes and sizes - they ultimately became some our biggest advocates. We lost that when we lost routine reviews. 
• The questions that ERO use to guide their review are, in some degree, not as useful as they could be, as many of them are not written in terms that are meaningful in the home education context, or even make a lot of sense to homeschooling parents who don't speak "teacher-ese."

What about other possible forms of accountability or review? Traditionally most home educators have strongly desired to maintain independence from any form of "interference" by government departments. Even having to write an exemption application in the first place in order to teach your own children may seem an unnecessary imposition to some. This article is not the place to debate in full these points of view, but know this: I agree that good parents should be able to make their own choices when it comes to their children's education and wellbeing, and not be interfered with. I (and NCHENZ) have long been in a place of advocating to maintain our freedoms as much as possible. However, two things must be acknowledged: sadly not all parents are good parents, and even the good ones can flounder a bit and would benefit from some support, ideas or guidance from time to time. Ignoring these facts does not lead to the best outcomes for members of our community. 

That said, there may be other ways we can help ourselves and each other, that will benefit our children, and not be too burdensome or stressful for busy parents who need to focus on the day to day teaching and guiding of their children. And, maybe, there would also be something in this space that would provide additional assurance to the Ministry that the children are doing ok. 

One of the downsides, it must be understood, of the Ministry having little or no information on the on-going programmes and progress of our children is that it increases concern and pressure at the front end, which is directly responsible (in large part) for the increasingly demanding expectations of staff members who are processing exemption applications. 

So yes, I think we can find other ways to hold ourselves accountable in a way that actually benefits our families, while also helping to calm government sector concerns. 

Work that is being done:
These matters are being worked on on a number of fronts behind the scenes, including by the NCHENZ executive and other key people within the home education sector. It's all still in the discussion and brainstorming stage.

• There is planning being done to have a meeting with key staff to give them an opportunity to express their concerns, so we can listen, and consider those when making suggestions down the track.
• There is work being done on making suggestions for improvements to ERO's review questions, and also considering how some similar questions could help families consider their own progress and next steps periodically.
• There is work being done on considering what data we may be able to share with ERO in respect of the survey they're currently conducting, which may better inform them.
• And there is brainstorming being done, for experienced home educators coming up with ideas which could then be put to the wider home education community around how they might self-review for their own benefit and also provide some appropriate degree of accountability that would help ensure better outcomes for all students, while also relieving concerns.

​Always kept in mind in all of these things is not adding unreasonable burdens to busy families and protecting our privacy and freedom to make individual choices about our children's education. 

Bottom line:
Please don't be distressed by articles like this. And don't engage in speculative rumours about what might happen, and what the Ministry thinks and so on. Do take a moment to ask yourself "How do I personally monitor my own children's progress and achievements? Is there anything I could do better? Would I like any further resources and ideas to help with that?" Whatever your answers to yourself, write them down. This will help you act on them, and will also be helpful when we get to the stage of calling for ideas from the wider home education community. 
​
Know that national representatives of the home education sector and those who work closely with families are working together to find answers, temper concerns, and come up with workable outcomes and ways forward that will be beneficial to families and impose as little as reasonably possible on time and freedoms. We are all volunteers in this space though. We cannot promise to make certain things happen - but we can say we are doing our level best to work for the benefit of the wider home education community. 

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

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

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

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

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

To which they responded:
Kia ora Cynthia,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)