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:
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:
What this means
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.
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.
No consultation
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."
"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.
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.
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.
The issues
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!!
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!!
Where things sit right now
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.
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!
Actions to take - families and individuals
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:
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.
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:
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.
- 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.
Actions to take - regional or other home education groups
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.
Now is the time!
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.
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.
RSS Feed
