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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

​This section allows for:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Provisions concerning students with enrolment exemption

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

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

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

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

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

Section 556 Grants to educational bodies
(1) An educational body may, on conditions that the Minister thinks fit, be paid grants out of money appropriated by Parliament for the purpose.
(2) However, a grant may not be paid to a tertiary education provider or a workforce development council unless the Minister is satisfied that the payment is in the national interest.
(3) The Minister may determine the amount of, and the conditions that apply to, each grant.
(4) Before a grant is paid, the Minister may give the educational body written notice that the grant, or a part or parts of the grant (specified as a particular sum or as a proportion of the total grant), is not to be used except for purposes specified in the notice.
(5) If notice is given, the educational body must ensure that no part of the grant to which the notice relates is used for purposes other than those specified for it in the notice.
(6) Apart from this restriction, an educational body to which a grant is paid may apply the grant as it sees fit.
(7) In the financial year during which a grant was paid to an educational body, and during the next financial year,--
  (a) the Secretary may, by written notice, require the educational body to provide the Secretary with any financial report, or statistical or other information, relating to the educational body, within a time specified in the notice and in writing; and
  (b) the educational body must take all reasonable steps to comply with the notice.
(8) The Minister may, for the purposes of this section and section 557, recognise a body that provides any educational or developmental service or facility, including a tertiary education organisation, as an educational body.
Compare: 1989 No 80 s 321

For more on the Supervision Allowance, see my article HERE

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

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

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

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