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.
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.
Background
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 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.”
2025 Reviews
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.
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.
So what is the problem?
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.
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.
We can never trust the ERO again regardless, nor the Secretary if they are given this kind of power
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.
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.
Actions to take
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.
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.
RSS Feed
