They make for interesting reading. There is much I could say about them - my own printed copies are covered in notes. For now, I want to make these available for all home educators to read, rather than wait until I have time to speak to them in detail. Just a few points I will mention:

• The cover letter notes that in response to the audit, the Ministry is working on updating the home education application forms and guidance for parents, and outlines some of what they will be looking for. This is a work in progress; new forms will be released in the coming months. 
• It also notes that the Ministry is considering centralising assessment of applications to a national team - this is still being investigated but looking increasingly likely to happen. Doing so may overcome a number of the issues identified in the audit, particularly around consistency of processes and proper handling of related documents. 
• The documents refer to a Chief Court Judge raising concerns in 2022 around "the increased number of home-educated child harm cases that were coming through the court and questioned the Ministry's role in these cases." There is no indication of just how many such cases there are, or had previously been, and how they compare proportionately to the number of children in school who are harmed, not whether home education itself was actually a factor in the harm that was considered to have occurred. This Judge's enquiry is purportedly the whole reason for the internal audit to begin with. And this is where the questions about home educated child "health, safety and well-being" begin. 
• The documents also keep referring to "equitable and excellent outcomes" - this is a catch-phrase from the Ministry of Education's Statement of Intent 2021-2026 which sets out the purposes and expectations for the education system, coming out of Chris Hipkin's 2018 onwards consultation process for overhauling the education system. 
• The "terms of reference" document for the audit mentions a range of matters that they wanted to look at. They considered the engagement important because of the 81% increase in home educators (as of 2023) since 2017, and the $9.3m budget allocation (that's for supervision allowances). Notably they don't pay attention to the fact that those same children, if in state schools, would account for $126m in per student funding. 
• As part of the audit, they looked at a sample of approved exemption applications. Given that there are some 2,300 applications approved each year, a statistically significant sample size would be 330 applications. However, the Ministry only looked at 13! And note that for 3 of those, the records requested could not be found, and for a further 6 some records were missing or incomplete. Yet it is based upon those 13 that they drew various conclusions. 
• One of their chief concerns is the lack of "visibility or routine monitoring" of the "presence, participation and progress of home educated children." Though from much of the language, it seems the Ministry is more concerned with its own reputation and risk, than the actual students themselves. Anyway, this sits behind recommendations to review how the Ministry tracks learning and progress for home educated students. 
• Their other chief concern is around "well-being" - essentially coming down to whether the "learning environment" is suitable and recommending that they should "include an assessment of the home educator's dwelling" as part of the exemption criteria. There are problems galore with this idea! It likely deserves an entire blog post of its own. 

These two chief concerns obviously, in hindsight, sit behind much of the RIS and the Minister's proposed legislative changes. At least we now have that information and can speak to it as part of our on-going engagement with the Ministry and Minister before any new draft legislation emerges. 

Each of these documents is a PDF and should open in a new window when clicked on. I encourage every home educator to read them for themselves. 

However, note that these were written 2 years ago, and while they do sit behind some of the ongoing work that is happening, there have been significant staff changes and restructuring in the meantime, and the implementation of any "ideas" presented in reports always comes down to resourcing (ie funding) and Ministerial priorities. Just because the Ministry has made certain recommendations to themselves or the Minister in any given report, doesn't mean that is what will actually happen. So please do not be overly alarmed by any particulars. 

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. 

It's now clear that we have a change in government. National and ACT will form the next NZ government, with or without NZ First, depending on the final results due to be announced on November 3rd. When change happens, folk may feel a sense of uncertainty. What changes will happen? What effect will "election promises" and other proposed policies have on our situations, our families, our lives? Clearly the newly elected parties have spoken about making numerous changes in many areas, but here let's talk about what likely or possible effects these parties might have on home education.

First, let's take a quick look at previous governments with National and/or ACT and/or NZ First, and actions they took that affected home education. History is an important backdrop to understanding present and future scenarios.

The 1989 Education Act, created by Labour, brought into being the Ministry of Education, ERO, and the need to apply to the Ministry for an exemption, and also instigated ERO reviews of home educators. I mention these as they are the starting point for all that has followed.

In 1989 the then-Labour government also decided to begin paying a Supervision Allowance to home educators. This began to be paid in 1990, the same year as National took power.

In 1994, National's Education Minister ended reviews of home educators, stating that the expense was not justified.

In late 1996, after the first MMP election, National and NZ First formed a coalition government. NZ First pushed for routine review of home educators, wanting them to have more accountability (this was part of their coalition agreement negotiations). An amendment was made to the Education Act to give ERO specific broad powers to review home educators (they didn't actually have this prior except in the case of investigating a complaint, or reviewing an application in the event of an appeal), and routine reviews resumed in 1997. 

In 2009, National (now in a coalition with ACT, United Future and the Maori Party) again scrapped routine reviews, providing funding for up to 35 on a complaints basis (as it has remained since).

There have been no other polices that I can recall from National, ACT or NZ First that have directly targeted/affected home educators. However, policy changes don't all come from government themselves - the Ministry and ERO have some degree of autonomy and take on certain things independently. For example, in 2014-15, the Ministry conducted an in-depth "review of homeschooling" and as a result made changes to their application forms and process, in-house procedures and so on. At times regional Ministry staff have attempted to apply government policies for schools to home educators - though we are actually not subject to them and don't have to comply. Some examples of this would be when the govt set a target for 85% of 18 yos to achieve at least NCEA 2 or equivalent by 2017, or more recently when Aotearoa NZ Histories are being required to be taught in schools - some Ministry staff asked parents applying for exemptions how they were going to include/make these things happen in their home education programme. But both of these policies (along with most others) are for students in the state education sector, and do not apply to home education. In 1996, the Ministry (not the government) asked home educators to write self-evaluation reports in lieu of reviews. Most refused, and this fell by the wayside.

Prior to this election, NCHENZ reviewed the parties' written policies, and also emailed them asking about any intended policies around home education (and also raising the matter of the supervision allowance needing proper review/updating). In respect of the three parties potentially forming the next government, we know the following:

National Party: Over the months prior to the election, Erica Stanford (as education spokesperson for National), asked a number of parliamentary questions about home education. A few weeks ago, I attended a public event where she was there to talk about education, and directly asked her some questions about her thoughts and intentions regarding homeschooling. She made a number of statements which expressed “concern” about not knowing anything about the quality of education home educated students are receiving, but also showed little understanding of how home education works. She indicated that she would like to meet with NCHENZ directly to discuss further, though that has yet to be arranged. Erica is very likely to be the next Minister of Education.

In response to our email, which was sent shortly before that meeting, NCHENZ received the following response (published in their Oct newsletter to members):
“Erica and the policy team have been doing research and asking questions regarding some the challenges the home-schooling sector is facing. She has been meeting with relevant stakeholders and has been listening to what the government needs to do to improve home schooling in New Zealand.

If elected, the National Party will be looking very carefully at some of the shortcomings of the system, including looking at the allowance to see if it is still fit for purpose, as this has been something that has frequently been raised by stakeholders. While there are not any specific home-schooling policies out now, this is definitely an area that Erica is looking into.”

ACT and NZ First: neither party have any written policies related to home education, and neither responded to NCHENZ's emails. Since the time NZ First pushed for ERO reviews in 1997, they have held no further policies around home education, though they have been in government since.

It has always been an accepted option in NZ for parents to choose to educate their children at home. This has been allowed for in every set of education legislation enacted in NZ, since the first (1877) Education Act. None of our governments have desired or tried to do away with homeschooling as an option. In fact, most of our governments have liked the fact that this option exists - because they know that there will always be some students for whom the state education system is not suitable for one reason or another, or who they just can't reach. The fact that parents can choose to step in and accept responsibility for the education of their own children (removing the "problem" from the government's plate) is a positive as far as they are concerned (whatever may be right or wrong about this thinking).

The main questions/concerns/ideas that float around in government heads (if they think about us at all) about home education are the following:

• Why are so many people taking their kids out of school and going homeschooling? We don't know.
• We don't know if they're receiving a "quality education" at home.
• We don't know what outcomes home education leads to.
• We don't have any evidence that they are safe (though we also don't have any evidence that they're not).

Why do these things concern them? Governments are considered responsible for funding and overseeing the compulsory education sector etc. By extension, they tend to imagine themselves to be responsible for the well-being and education of all NZ children. If a group of kids is found to be being let down by the state sector - eg they are not kept safe, or they are not achieving in education - then this creates headlines, enquiries and so on, which reflect badly on the government. The government never likes to look bad - that's how you lose elections.

So when it comes to home education, what they fear most is not that we exist - but that they don't KNOW much. They don't have data and statistics and reports and so on to prove that all is well or to answer their questions. If someone asks an Education Minister "how do you know that home educated students are receiving a quality education" and your only answer is "we don't", well that doesn't go down well. Ask Jan Tinetti - who was asked this question in a pre-election interview, which was followed by headlines screaming "Labour failing home schooled children."

When someone in government wants to know the answers to questions such as the above, they ask the Ministry to provide them with the information. Currently, however, the Ministry doesn't hold (or think they hold) the answers either. This is partly their own fault (both MoE and government). They CAN come up with data on outcomes (they did it for the 2014 review), they just don't usually make the effort. They COULD know about the quality of home education programmes if they'd been doing more reviews - but haven't had the funding to do so. And so on.

If any changes are made, I think they will centre around the four "concerns" I outlined above.

In respect of WHY people are choosing home education, this is not a question asked in exemption applications, simply because it is parents' right to choose this - and they don't have to justify it. However, the MoE's draft updated applications have added this as an optional question, simply because the government keeps asking them this question and they have nothing to offer, so this would be an attempt to begin to collect data on it. Parents would be able to choose to answer it or not.

In respect of QUALITY of education programmes at home, Erica Stanford thinks this needs looking at. She tossed around some ideas like having families submit samples of work to "someone, perhaps local school principals." Clearly that idea is a non-starter for a bunch of reasons! However, if the government wants to check on home educators' learning programmes, they have an allowance in the law to do so - ERO reviews, which is the ONLY legal way they can do so. They simply have to choose to fund more of them, and advise the MoE how many should be done per year. The MoE have in fact been asking for more funding for reviews every year for some time now, and been told no each year - it just hasn't been a government priority. Whether, when faced with actual costs, the new government will consider it a priority remains to be seen. An ERO review of ONE homeschooled student costs around $4-600 (exact figures haven't been published in a few years). A bit of math on ERO's budget figures suggest that the review of an entire school costs around $1200. In reviewing a school, they are effectively checking up on the education of possibly hundreds, if not thousands, of students. You can see why previous governments have considered the review of home educators not to be an effective use of money.

I do think it's likely we will see some kind of increase in the number of reviews to be conducted per year. How many, and whether it will constitute "routine reviews of all home educators" remains to be seen. It's not just about money - but also about having ERO staff to conduct the reviews. Given that one of the National party's election platform policies was to CUT state sector employees, this may or may not be an option for them at this time if more staff would be needed. Just for comparison, when reviews were "routine" previously, they reviewed about 600 students per year. In 2009, when they ceased routine reviews, there were just under 6000 exempt students. We are heading towards double that now. Anyway, if they fund, say, 1000 reviews per year, it would take about 10 years to do one review of each exempt student. And that's only assuming successive governments through that time continue to fund the reviews at the same rate.

It is perhaps likely that "routine" reviews may be re-instigated for a time - long enough for the evidence to show, once again, that most home educators are doing well, and that this expenditure is of limited benefit.

It's also possible that alternatives to the current standard model of ERO review may be considered (in fact some have already begun to be discussed with ERO) - this may allow for options that are less intrusive for families plus allow ERO to get at least a high-level view of more families more quickly. We will see.

In respect of SAFETY of home educated children, well this comes back to ERO reviews again -  in other words, someone "checking up on" families and seeing that the kids are doing fine. Once again, ERO is the only legal way for the government to do this, except in instances where someone has reported some kind of welfare concern to a government department or the Police about a specific child or family, and Oranga Tamariki becomes involved.

And when it comes to OUTCOMES, there are some options - the MoE could do what they did in the 2014-2015 review and compile data from NZQA about student achievements for those who have been home educated vs those who were in school. Or they could compile, with the help of the sector, broader data on outcomes. They could collect this from families themselves, when students finish home educating and/or several years later, and from providers of exams, certificates etc etc. Again, though, this kind of activity costs money, and the government has to be willing to fund it, or the MoE to decide it's important enough to do within their operational budget.

What else might change? Well, the Supervision Allowance seriously needs looking at, and Erica Stanford has acknowledged this has been repeatedly raised. I hope we will see a substantial increase in the allowance in the not too distant future. While there have been fears in the past that this would come with more "strings", I think that is unlikely. Because any strings they add actually make more work for the Ministry, and they don't have the staff or resources for that. They've already rejected any possibility of being able to, for instance, process "reports" from home educators. What else could they actually require of us? The law allows for the Ministry to pay grants to "educational bodies" and to "determine the amount, and conditions, of each grant." - currently that is for us to sign the declaration and return it in order to get the grant (aka supervision allowance). Any other "conditions" they might add would need to be ones appropriate to require of an "educational body." No other part of the Act allows them to set any conditions upon home educators, other than gaining an exemption and being subject to ERO reviews.

The Ministry has already been working on updating their application forms and guidance (for nearly 18 months now), in theory to make the process simpler and clearer. So we can expect to see those updated forms sooner or later. The forms will not impose more restrictions or conditions on home educators. They may have tweaked their expectations for an application - if any amendments are unreasonable, then we will respond appropriately and inform the home education community of any recommended actions also.

The National Party has talked about their intentions for the education sector, including "an hour a day (each) of reading, writing and math", standardised curriculum and assessments, requiring the use of Structured Literacy, and so on. All of these policies apply to schools controlled by the government - that is State and State Integrated Schools. They do NOT apply to home educators (or private schools). The law allows parents to choose "how" as well as "where" their child will be educated. We need to "teach as regularly and well as" - but the details of our programme of learning are up to us. No, we will not be required to engage in testing, or implement any of the other specifics the schools will.

National/ACT (with or without NZ First) as government are unlikely to introduce any major changes that affect home educators other than those discussed above. They're certainly not going to "cancel" home education as an option, or force us to use specific testing. They may increase the number of ERO reviews per year for a time. Hopefully they will increase the Supervision Allowance. The MOE will likely complete the update of their application forms, including some optional questions to provide data to government. And if the government really want to know about long term outcomes, they may commission the Ministry to collect/compile data on that. Otherwise I don't expect we'll see much in the way of changes.

It would be wise for families to reflect upon how they track their children's learning journey and progress - what evidence they could present if they had an ERO review - and consider whether there are any ways they might like to improve/tweak this. Further ideas and information to support this will likely be forthcoming from various parts of the home education sector, so look out for those.

NCHENZ will hopefully meet with incoming Education Minister/s as well as the MoE in the next few months. If you're not a NCHENZ member yet, join - it's free (though donations appreciated) - so you will receive the quarterly updates.

The work you are doing as you raise your children and guide their learning at home is precious and valuable! Be encouraged that no party is seeking to disrupt that; they only are interested in assuring themselves that they have evidence that our kids are being "taught at least as regularly and well as they would be in a registered school."