Products being sold on Sella are at our normal price: http://www.sella.co.nz/user/hef/
Trade Me
Welcome to Trade Me
Check out our TradeMe Listings!
We are member number 2366144
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Members/Listings.aspx?member=2366144
Our products being sold on Trademe have the trademe costs added above our normal price. To avoid these extra costs go to Sella or buy from us directly.
Sometimes it’s not best to look at another’s exemption until after you’ve had a go at doing your own first. Otherwise all you can think to write is what you’ve seen in the other person’s sample exemption application. Have a go at writing yours after reading the material below and then have someone look at it before sending it in.
The Exemption application is NOT user friendly, is it? A very intimidating document it is!
However, most of the people behind it, the ones who assess it when you send it back, are pretty positive about home education: they’ve seen the results and they like what they see.
In addition, once you get past the document’s jargon and intimidating approach, you will discover that it affords you more freedom and flexibility than you will ever meet again from a government department!! Believe it or not, there are NO legal requirements or compulsory subjects!! All you must do is “satisfy” the MoE that the child “will be taught at least as regularly and well as in a registered school” as you see in the application. That is ALL the law requires.
So the first question asks to explain your knowledge and understanding of the broad curriculum areas YOU INTEND TO COVER. Note: it is what YOU intend to cover and as they say in question 2, it is YOUR curriculum vision they want to see explained, not the MoE’s, not the neighbour next door or the school down the street…..they want to read in your own words what YOU intend to do. The list of subjects you’ll see on the exemption application form is only a guide…it is not a list of subject you are required to teach. You can pick and choose from that list or do something completely different. As long as you can clearly and competently explain what your intentions are and how you plan to go about it (that’s question 2) and how you’ll know you’re making progress (that’s quesiton 7, I think, the one on assessments), the MoE will virtually always give you your exemption.
There is an expectation that you’ll provide an academic as opposed to an agricultural or domestically focussed education.
As long as you cover what most would cosider the basic stuff: reading, writing, arithmetic, history, science in one way or another, you should be fine. The exact list of subjects, which ones you emphasis, which ones you treat lightly, which ones you leave out, which ones you add in which they haven’t got listed….it is all up to you.
The first question basically wants you to outline your understanding of the subject areas you intend to cover with your child. The answer would depend upon the child’s academic level and what you want to teach. Just think over the next year or so and describe that kind of stuff. Note that this is really only a statement of intent: once you get your exemption you can change as much as you like but you’ll never have to re-negotiate the exemption!!
The second question wants you to take a topic of your choice: so look at one of the subject areas, break it down into subtopics, then each of those into its component parts. Choose one of the sub-topics or component parts and describe a lesson plan over the next couple of months as to how you would go about presenting that topic: there are lectures, field trips, reading books, internet, projects, write a play, a poem, an essay, go talk to an expert, go to the library, etc., etc. The question on assessments is easy. Because you observe your child nearly all day, everyday, you know when the child has understood the material and when he has not. So you do an informal assessment based on intimate observation. That’s all that’s needed. You may do the odd oral quiz or written one you make up yourself. You may get a hold of formal tests which are available here or there.
The rest of the questions are pretty straight forward.
Let me add a bunch of other stuff I’ve written in the past to others which may be of some help in getting a vision for what you’re going to be doing.
All the best!
Home education is a ticket to a vast amount of freedom and flexibility to put together a curriculum that would be tailor made for your son, one that would afford him the best education possible. If you were to bring him home so that it is just the two of you for most of the day, you would already have more advantages, vastly superior, to even the most gifted of teachers in the most expensively equipped classrooms….and that is before we even start talking about curriculum resources! What I mean is this: no one on this earth is more motivated for your son’s success than you. No one is more willing to spend the blood, sweat, toil and tears that may be required to see him mature to full manhood.
No one knows him better than you. No one has already done more for him than have you…..you couldn’t PAY anyone to do what you have already done for him over those past 11 years. No one else except perhaps your husband/his dad is as close to him, has his trust as much, is the one with whom he feels most secure. No one else can see when he understands, and when he is struggling. No one else is willing to be with him 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, which means no one else will ever be able to observe him as closely and come to know his interests, passions, aspirations, abilities, inclinations, aptitudes and favourite/most efficient ways in which he learns and assimilates knowledge. As I say, even gifted teachers can only dream about such advantages which you already possess by default. Education and schooling are two very different things. Schooling is what your son has experienced up til now. If you bring him home and teach him yourself, you can give him a true education. We are talking of a lot more than just a certain body of head knowledge and a few skills. We are talking about the ability to use that knowledge and those skills in the proper way, for the proper purposes, in the context of the real world of the home, the market place, the community and the workplace. That is, you can pass on to him what you know, what you know he REALLY needs to learn, all those lessons in life (the most important ones of all) which I’m certain you will agree you did not learn in the classroom. You can pass on the attitudes, values, standards, concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, wise and unwise, that you are personally convinced about, rather than the ones that just get slipped to him in what they call the “hidden curriculum” at schools. You can train his character and build in the character qualities you know his future employers, his future wife, his future children will want to see in him and that he will definitely need to possess. You can help him to see how the knowledge he gains fits into the “big picture”.
The most important and useful thing you can do for him is both motivate him to learn and at the same time give him a vision for taking upon his own shoulders, as appropriate, more and more of the responsibility for his own education. Once he sees that the whole world is his oyster, you may have trouble holding him back, not that you’d want to do that necessarily; but you both will not have trouble filling in your day, wondering what to study and investigate next: your problem will be that there are not enough hours in the day to follow up all the leads you want to follow.
Believe it or not, the law, the Education Act, does not require even schools to teach anything in particular: they have to be open for so many hours and they must teach from a “secular” perspective (”with no religious instruction or observance”) and there is an expectation that they will be getting sex education, but that is as far as the Act itself goes. It does say the schools much teach according to the syllabus handed down from the Minister of Education (a career politician, please allow me to point out, as opposed to a career educationalist) in the Gazette from time to time. What this means is that you have a maximum amount of freedom to put together your own curriculum from whatever materials you prefer. I know this is frustrating at first: why doesn’t someone just hand you the recipe, A, B, C, for you can easily follow that. But please do not overlook the opportunity to give your son the best education he’s ever likely to be offered….and you are the one who can offer it and can most definitely deliver it, regardless of your qualifications or lack of them. Your own personal confidence level and commitment are the deciding factors, not any set of text books or resources or pre-existing ability.
There is no recognised body of knowledge that young people need to know in order to succeed in the New Zealand of the 21st century. What the MoE pushes through the schools is merely their current (politically determined) guess. You, on the other hand, are not politically motivated, but have a much better grasp on the realities of everyday life in the real world.
Run with that. There are many local home education support groups out there, many email discussion groups just in NZ, many networks for swapping ideas and curriculum materials. There are many educational philosophies out there, and various learning styles and various teaching styles. Yes, these things require a bit of investigation, but again, you have other advantages in a home education situation that mean you can relax a fair bit about the passage of time as you and your son together investigate these things. Actually the investigation itself is a very useful and practical educational project! These extra advantages I mean here, in addition to the ones I already enumerated, are those of the tutoring or mentoring situation you will have with just you as teacher/guide/mentor and your son the student. One-on-one instruction coupled with a vigorously interactive format is the most efficient form of learning full stop.
For simplicity we normally think of all the academic objectives as sitting in two baskets. The first are the basic skills that must be MASTERED: the 3 Rs: reading, writing and arithmetic. These do take a fair bit of intensive tuition in order to master, not just become passable at. Reading, being a form of information intake, includes listening. One must be an accurate reader and listener, comprehending as much as possible, and discerning the difference between reasoned debate and sheer propaganda, between an honest critique and a sales pitch, between fact and opinion, etc. Writing is not just penmanship, spelling and grammar, but also composition of tightly reasoned, logical and well constructed essays. Being a form of information output, writing also includes public speaking, the ability to face an audience of one or a thousand and deliver with confidence a prepared or an extemporaneous talk on a subject of interest or importance. Arithmetic would be to master all the maths that you as an adult use and need on a day to day basis: it probably doesn’t include trigonometry or calculous and may only include some very basic concepts from geometry and algebra. I could add a fourth R: research skills. The child who has mastered these basic skills in this first basket can then teach himself virtually anything after than, with a bit of guidance from you. The second basket contains everything else, and can be covered most effectively by simply reading good books together, watching good videos and educational CDs, doing projects together and field trips and discussing them. This second basket can also be done with a family of several different age groups at the same time: simply expect more from the older ones, less from the younger ones.
Most of what we expect to be doing and producing as a “Home School” is counter productive: desks, blackboards, textbooks, lectures, assignments, home work, marking, standardised tests. These are all logistical developments to cope with the school setting of one teacher and 25 children. None of these things are needed – or useful – to the tutoring / mentoring situation. Because of the distractions, interruptions, strict timetables, necessity to change subjects at every 45 minute interval, the necessity to move at a pace too fast for some and too slow for others and totally irrelevant to still others, the politicised nature of the subjects taught, the enforced recess breaks and lunch times, the length of time it takes to get 25 children sitting in the same room, focused and turned to the same page in the same text book, the boring nature of text books, the mixed abilities and mixed backgrounds and mixed worldviews of the 25 students, plus many other factors….because of all these you can do at home in two hours what could easily take two weeks to accomplish in the typical school classroom.
The implication is, don’t even try to copy the conventional school approach to schooling in the classroom, but instead go for real-life education in the real world. Yes, this takes a bit of climbing up a steep learning curve at first, but doing it together becomes a very profitable exercise in real-world education.
There is formal learning: when parents directly teach, instruct or explain with or without text books or work books. This may more accurately be called formal teaching, for one is not too sure about the learning going on, especially if the children are not allowed to ask questions. If only the teacher asks questions, it is a good bet that little learning is going on.
There is informal learning, when you are discussing a book you are reading together or to them, or interacting over the things seen along the way as you drive from A to B. This is the heart of mentoring: reading and discussing and interacting together over all the issues of life as they come your way. Remember the three year old’s incessant “Why?” questions?
You never want them to stop asking those questions, for when they do, it may mean they have blocked the in-take routes and are no longer filled with that natural curiosity. In free discussions encourage questions, all questions, any questions.
They will not come at you in a logical fashion, starting with grammar and going step by logical step through all there is to know and then changing to maths and taking it step by incremental step as one would find in a conventional school’s scope and sequence. (Actually NZ schools stopped doing this ages ago and now follow a constructivist philosophy wherein the teachers no longer have an agreed body of knowledge to pass on nor are they thought of as repositories of wisdom and knowledge, but are now facilitators whose job it is to provide children with learning opportunities where they can explore and discover and construct their own bodies of knowledge – and arrive at their own personal custom-made concepts of truth and reality, free from the fixed biases of by-gone generations. Hey, I’m not making this up! Go ask a state teacher!) But they will come at you with questions which follow links in their own minds, links that you can strengthen and introduce to other links or ones that you can show to be invalid, unwise, unwholesome, etc., because YOU are the authority, you ARE the authority, you are THE AUTHORITY in your children’s life, just as it should be, just as they need.
There is incidental learning which your children just pick up as you go about your daily business, things that are caught rather than taught. This includes much in the area of character training, which may be far more important and valuable to your children when it’s all said and done than their academic accomplishments.
There is self-learning, self-instruction that takes place when the children have free play, pursue hobbies, experiment on their own, are set tasks and put in charge or made responsible for regular chores, or when they just sit down and start reading for their own enjoyment and edification.
Then there is learning that takes place when you aren’t even there: when they join clubs, go to scouts, church groups, camps, sports teams, visit Uncle Ted up the valley and help milk the cows, etc. As long as they are awake, they are learning something.
The curriculum is all waking hours. Fairly flexible that, not necessarily organised to the last detail. In fact, most home educators who start off really formally soon become rather informal. And those who start off really informally soon become even more informal, and may appear to outsiders to be goofing off all day. It is just that they are pursuing knowledge in a more effective method of reading, discussion, exploration, experimentation and discussion. There may be precious little “work” produced as in schools, but that is because “school work” is another one of those logistical requirements of schools to ensure the children are in fact doing “something”, for the teacher cannot possibly know where each child is up to.
It is a bit unusual to be declined straight out on the first application. It is, however, a regular occurance that they will send a rather negative sounding letter that is only asking for more information. Sometimes this letter is mistaken for being turned down.
If in fact you were turned down, the process of appealing to the secretary for education, Karen Sewell, may not be the best…from my reading of the Education Act, the secretary’s decision is final. Now that “final” clearly applies to that particular exemption application. I hope it does not apply to any subsequent applications you may make to the Min of Ed.
What we normally advise is, if you are turned down, rather than appeal, just drop it and make a brand-new, fresh application. Then the question of the decision being “final” is avoided.
Our experience over the past 20 years is that the Min of Ed does more or less play fair…and if you make a fresh application, it will be assessed on its own merits and not “tarnished” by your earlier exemption that was turned down.I’m not a lawyer. Our charitable trust, the Home Education Foundation, is not a lobby group to pressurise the Min of Ed or anyone else. We try to ensure we provide accurate and helpful information.
The Picoh Report of 1988 which prompted the Labour Government’s “Tomorrow’s Schools” policy changes said quite clearly that home schooling was a “right” enjoyed by parents since the first Education Act was set up back in 1877. The attitude of the present Min of Ed is not quite the same: they say parents have a “right” to apply for an exemption, but not an automatic “right” to home school.
Having said that, the only hurdle to getting an exemption is putting together an application for exemption that will “satisfy” the Ministry that the child “will be taught at least as regularly and well as in a registered school.”
Note some of the key words:
“satisfy”…undefined and undefinable. That is because, believe it or not, there are no objective, legal standards that you have to meet. There is no requirement in the Ed Act for even state schools to teach reading, writing, arithmetic or anything else. They are required to be open, children are required to attend, teaching is required to be done from a “secular” perspective, but children are not required to learn anything in particular and the schools are not required to teach anything in particular (except private schools: they are legally required to inculcate the principles of citizenship and patriotism.) What this means for you is that an exemption application is nearly a blank cheque, allowing you an incredible degree of freedom and flexibility to put together your own curriculum tailor made to your child’s needs, abilities, level, capabilities, interests and aspirations.
“taught”…the assessment of the exemption application is on what you plan to teach, not what the child may or may not learn. Now, the Min of Ed does have a long standing policy of looking for a basic academic programme in your applicaiton: that is, you plan to teach reading, writing, arithmetic and maybe science and history somehow, and that your programme is not exclusively gardening, home economics, baby care, shopping, landscaping, car maintenance, pet care, etc.
“regularly”…this means only “some commitment to routine” (words straight from the Min of Ed’s exemption documents).
You can provide a timetable that is very detailed to the last half hour, or you can provide a broad-stroke plan that merely metions that you plan to hit maths and english on Mon, Wed and Fri mornings, reading and history on Tue and Thur mornings with the afternoons free to pursue projects, visit the library, science experiments, sports, etc. “well”…means giving “evidence of planning and balance” (words straight from the Min of Ed’s exemption documents). What they’re looking for is that you have a plan and know how to work the plan. They want to see what you “intend” to do; how you intend to do it; and how you’ll know you’re making progess.
The exemption applicaiton is a statement of intent…it is not a contract. You are telling the Min of Ed what you PLAN to do…you are not promising to do it. I asked the Min of Ed in the Head Office in Wellington what happens if parents change from what they originally wrote in their exemption applications. “Of course parents will change from what they originally wrote,” the Min of Ed replied. “In fact, we’d be worried if they DIDN’T change.” I asked the ERO (Education Review Office) the exact same question, and received the exact same answer, as if they’d read it from the same script! So the Min of Ed expects you to change from what you write, and neither they nor the ERO will hold you to it. As long as you can clearly explain what you are planning to do and show that you know what you’re doing, you should be fine. Occassionally a Min of Ed person will return your exemption and say something like you need to include social studies and technology. This is simply not true. You do not need to include anything in particular. It may be you’ve struck a new staff member. Or it may be their way of saying, “If you include this, we’ll quickly approve your application with no further delay, so we can get it off our desk, and you can get started,” knowing that there is no legal requirement for you to do more than “plan” to teach social studies and technology…whether you actually end up teaching them is another thing altogether.
This kind of thinking puts most home educators right off: they like to mean what they say. And they don’t like the implication that they can sit around doing nothing in particular, for they have decided to home school specifically to give their child an education. But the point I’m trying to emphasise is that the application process really doesn’t bind you to anything in particular while at the same time giving you and incredible amount of freedom and felxibility to design your own personalised curriculum…one you can change, update and modify at will.
So, what you write in your application is not nearly as important as the way you write it. You want to be full of enthusiasm, brimming with confidence and competence, bursting with imaginative ideas…and your child can’t wait to get started! Being keen, knowing what you’re planning to do and clearly communicating your plans with imagination and excitement…these are the things that make the Min of Ed “satisfied”.
The first question (on some exemption application forms) has to do whether your child could or would be classified as special needs. If you can, do not mention any such special needs if they are minor such as dyslexia or dispraxia or mild autism or a physical disability. Some of these things are definitely an issue in the class room, but your home education programme is not going to be done in a classroom with all the attendant noise, confusion, vying for attention, misbehaviour, and group manipulation/control techniques the teachers are forced to use. No. You are in a one-to-one tutoring or mentoring situation, the best educational set up imaginable. And so your child’s dyslexia or dyspraxia or autism or whatever may not be an issue AT ALL for you as the child’s parent in this one-on-one scenario.
Another reason to avoid going into this area with the MoE when applying for an exemption is that the MoE person reading your application may decide your application falls within Section 21(1)(b)(ii) which says “in the case of a person who would otherwise be likely to need special education” the MoE must be satisfied that the child “will be taught at least as regularly and well as in a special class or clinic or by a special service.” That can be problematic for a couple of reasons. Special classes and clinics and services have been discontinued in many places. But worse than that, Section 21(8) may kick into action, and it is my opinion that this section is over the top in the arbitrary way in which the Secretary for Education can strip you of your right to home educate. Read the wording carefully:
Section 21(8): If the Secretary thinks any person exempted…would be better off getting special education, the Secretary may revoke the certificate and issue a direction under Section 9 of this Act.
Section 9: If satisfied that a person under 21 should have special education, the Secretary shall…direct [the parents] to enrol the person at a particular state school, special school, special class, or special clinic.
Words as “iffy” and undefined as “thinks”, “better off” and “satisfied” are really quite hopeless…do what you can to avoid going into this area.
The question about describing your knowledge and understanding of the broad curriculum areas you intend to cover and about describing your curriculum appear to be asking the same thing. Well, what they are generally after is a brief outline of your general approach and what you’re trying to accomplish in a general overview, possibly including something of your proposed methodology, you know, how you would probably organise a typical week. Mention things such as the non-academics you will pursue, how it will fit in with family and business life, etc. Specifically, they like to see a paragraph describing each of the subject areas (curriculum areas) you intend to cover. Last time I did one, I listed Maths, English, History, Science and Geography. Note, I did not mention Technology or Social Studies or Art or PE because none of these things are required subjects. Maths and English are not legally required subject either, but there would probably not be 1 in 2,000 home educators who would not include Maths and English in their curriculum for their children.
Anyway, if your child is 7, take a paragraph to describe (try not to simply list) the kind of maths you will cover: addition, subtraction, multiplication, maybe division, percentages, etc. You will not be talking about Trigonometry or Calculus, as it is assumed these mathematical subjects are not appropriate for a 7-year-old. Conversely, if your child is 14, you will probably be covering Algebra and Economics but not basic addition and subtraction, for it will be assumed the 14-yearold already has a handle on addition and subtraction. Now, if you are home educating the 14-year-old specifically because you discovered the schools failed to teach addition and subtraction, then of course mention that fact in very forceful terms.
Write a paragraph on what topics within each of the broader subject area you intend to cover: what aspects of English will you plan to cover? Possibly things like grammar, spelling, handwriting, listening, speaking, essay writing, note taking, poetry, Classical literature, plays, short stories of 19th Century American writers, etc. What aspects of Science will you plan to cover? Perhaps nuclear physics, biology, animal husbandry, chemistry, geology, the life cycle of a frog, avionics, light, sound, space, flight, etc. And so on for each of the subject areas you plan to cover.
Note: these are areas you intend to cover…this is not a promise on your part to do precisely as you write in the exemption application. The application DOES NOT become a contract between you and the MoE: it is merely a statement of intent on your part. The MoE and the ERO both know for a fact that you will be doing something entirely different a few months down the track, and they are both happy about that. When I asked them each separately at their respective head offices in Wellington, they both answered, as if reading from the same script, I was so surprised: “Of course parents will change from what they originally wrote in their exemption applications: in fact we’d be worried if they DIDN’T change.” As I’ve often said, the MoE and ERO bureaucracies are generally very reasonable people. They are good to deal with.
Try not to use language such as: “Our programme may cover any of the following areas:” It sounds too tentative, as if you are not sure. You need to come across with no uncertainties: so maybe say instead, “We plan for our programme to cover at least all of the following areas:” What you say is not nearly as important (because there are no legal, objective requirements) as how you say it. Come across as full of confidence, brimming with obvious competence, you have this totally in hand and know exactly what you are doing…and your children can’t WAIT to get started. This helps the MoE to relax, it sets their concerns at ease and helps them to be satisfied you will teach as regularly and well as in a registered school.
What they are looking for under the heading of “Plan” is for you to write up a sample lesson plan. So you get to choose a topic: select a subject area (Art for example) and then a small part of that (the use of nature in art) and then maybe even zero in on a smaller aspect of that (use of feathers in art). So then let your imagination go wild: this is where the MoE is looking to see what kind of ideas you can generate to present information to your child. So to study the use of feathers in art, you could search the internet, visit the library, visit the museum, visit the art gallery, call upon an expert in art, call upon an expert in ornithology (bird studies), go on several field trips to collect feathers, experiment with using feathers yourself in art projects: paintings, sculptures, fashion designs, photography. Write a poem, an essay, a stage play script about feathers. Perform the stage play. Your assessment ideally could tie in well with your aims or objectives: an objective could be to write a poem (an art form) about feathers or do a painting featuring feathers and then have it published (even if it is only in the local home schoolers’ newsletter). Such an objective makes it very easy to assess if your child has written the poem and easy to further assess if the poem was published. Once it is published, you have a tidy lesson plan. Also, we tend to think the MoE requires high and lofty goals, academically sound and challenging lessons.
We think too much. I’ve seen a lesson plan put together by a couple of parents, one with a PhD and one with a Masters Degree, who submitted a lesson plan on how to boil an egg. It was accepted!!!
Under resources and references, don’t forget to put public library, your own personal library, that of friends and neighbours, museums, art galleries, science centers, local craft guilds and hobby clubs, etc. Again, let your imagination go wild, and do not be afraid to sound repetitive or simplistic. We have a tendency to assume the MoE knows what we mean, but in this exemption application, it is always best to spell it out completely and not assume anything.
If you are using a specific curriculum package, such as the ACE Curriculum for example, you may consider changing the use of certain give-away words such as “Word Building” and not mention that you are using ACE Curriculum at all. The only reason for me saying this is that the MoE does not like the ACE Curriculum, although they can hardly speak against it as there are many ACE schools about. But as soon as the MoE understands that you are using that particular curriculum, or any other particular curriculum package, they will ask a series of other questions to see if you know more of how that particular curriculum system works. Some people find it easier to stay on the generic subject of “Science” than to explain how the “Apologia” or the “Calvert” curriculum Science programmes work.
Always get someone to do a final proof-read, have it all typed up to look like a million dollars and send it in.
It is almost certain they will send it back asking for more information here are there. So just add more information where they say and assume the rest is AOK. You will get your exemption.
You will need to address the issue of regularity. If you like doing grid-like timetables with days of week along the top and hour by hour break downs along the side, great…they love those. But you needn’t be as formal as that. You can instead say stuff like, well, on Mon, Wed and Fri mornings we try to hit maths and English Grammar and Spelling…on Tue and Thur mornings we hit the science and history. In the afternoons we finish off morning work and do some relaxed reading and writing, PE, etc. However you would do that, I believe you need to specifically address how you’ll home educate in a regular fashion.
You may also need to address assessment specifically. You can access formal exams, like the old PAT, or make up your own written quizzes as you go. You can make up your own oral quizzes as you go. And you are of course observing your child all the time, and you will know if he is having a hard time coming to grips with the material or just having you on…whether he has mastered the skill TO YOUR SATISFACTION or not…and that is the standard…your satisfaction. If he has, you progress to the next stage. If he has not, you will review and practise until he has. That’s assessment.
In many ways, you almost need to spell things out rather pedantically and childishly so that they can clearly see you know what you’re talking about…don’t make too many assumptions that they’ll know what you mean…spell it out.
The MoE seems to have a bee in their collective bonnet in relation to technology, meaning goofing around on computers, operating cell phones, etc. So if you are like me and consider “Technology” to be a non-subject, you could mention technological involvement in the context of other stuff as much as you can in case they ask you to specifically cover technology (which they cannot insist upon, by the way, though they often ask, sometimes demand, it be included…another example of them stepping over the boundary of their jurisdiction.)
Here is some correspondence I had with the Min of Ed a while back on this issue” Dennis Hughes and Derek Miller of the Ministry of Education in Wellington answered the following question for me on 15 June 2000:
Question: “Are any of the National Curriculum objectives required for home educators in order to get their exemptions?
My understanding is that none of them are.”
Answer: “You are correct. There is no requirement that homeschoolers follow the National Curriculum. The only requirement is that homeschooling students are taught “at least as regularly and well as in a registered school.
“The Ministry’s interpretation of this phrase is contained in the statement which forms part of the information pack that accompanies the homeschooling application form. Among other things, this says that “Ministry officers will look for some evidence of planning and balance that we would expect would be a feature of curriculum organisation in any registered school.
“The National Curriculum is useful to the Ministry as a standard reference when determining whether a homeschooler’s programme is a balanced one. Homeschooling offers an opportunity for greater organisational flexibility than is possible in many schools, and Ministry staff would normally be understanding if a homeschooler adopts a holistic approach to curriculum management. But if, for example, a homeschooling programme gives free reign to a student’s interest in computer-related studies but appears to give limited time to the development of communications skills and physical skills, then a Ministry official would be right to ask for a more balanced programme.”
You do not have to implement a Social Studies or Technology programme, no matter what the MoE officer reading your exemption application or the ERO person reviewing you says. Are you aware that the Education Act does not itself specify any particular subjects to be taught (except in the case of a private school, which is obliged to inculcate the values of citizenship and patriotism)? Section 60A of the Act merely says that national education goals and national curriculum statements may be published by the Minister from time to time in the Gazette. But the Act does not require even their own schools to teach reading or writing or arithmetic (or social studies), so it is certain that they cannot require you to teach anything in particular. They can suggest, they can encourage, they can plead, but they cannot cajole or require or threaten without going outside their legal powers. Now, MoE and ERO people are human and, like any other government agent, will be tempted at times to go outside their legal powers, or just stretch the boundaries a little, although they are very careful about this and have procedures in place to prevent such events. It is pretty much up to us home educators to know what their limits are and to keep them to it. If we don’t, who will?
The MoE or ERO would only insist on a certain subject in the quest to see that your curriculum is “balanced”.
Remember, your curriculum includes everything your child does every day of the week. It is quite likely your children take in various aspects of social studies and technology (for example) in somewhat informal ways. Their hobbies, their chores, church and club activities, visiting relatives and friends will all have educational components which you can consider as part of your curriculum and which provide the balance both the MoE and ERO will be looking for.
Demonstrate that you had thought about these educational components and count them as part of your obligation to see that the child is “taught at least as regularly and well…” The Act does not say that you have to do all the teaching. Your curriculum vision could well encompass formal instruction by you and the Sunday School teacher and the Scout Leader as well as informal instruction by the student himself or life experiences or friends and relations.
Making an Application for Exemption from
Enrolment and Attendance
For a cut-down and clarified version of an exemption application, showing exactly what statements / questions on the application the MoE expects parents to respond to check out this link:
This is a cut-down and clarified version of an exemption application, showing exactly what statements / questions on the application the MoE expects parents to respond to.
1. Special Education Needs
If enrolled in a registered school, would your child be likely to need special education, forexample in a special class or clinic or by a special service? If yes, how do you plan to meet your child’s special educational needs?
2. Knowledge and understanding
Describe your knowledge and understanding of the broad curriculum areas you intend to cover as you educate your child.
3. Curriculum
Describe your curriculum or programme. Detail what you intend to cover with your child in different areas of your stated curriculum. The National Curriculum Framework may serve as a guide but use of this is not compulsory. It lists seven essential learning areas and eight grouipings of essential skills. These are listed below for your information should you wish to use the National Curriculum Framework as a guide.
4. The National Curriculum Essential Learning Areas
Language and Languages
Mathematics
Science
Technology
Social Sciences
The Arts
Health and Well-Being
Essential Skills
Communication Skills
Numeracy Skills
Information Skills
Problem-solving Skills
Self-management and competitive Skills
Social and co-operative Skills
Physical Skills
Work and study Skills
Whatever source of curriculum you select, you should be specific about the skills you want your child to learn and you should be clear about matching the learning needs of your child to your programme.
The Min of Ed does not expect you to respond to this #4, National Curriculum. It is included for your reference only. You are not required to follow the National Curriculum nor include any particular subjects into your own curriculum.
5. Topic Plan
To help the Ministry understand how your curriculum vision translates into practical terms, we ask you to includ one topic of your choosing.
We are looking for the following elements in your statement: The Topic Title – The Aim – what you are going to teach your child. Resources – what materials you would use to teach the topic. Method – what steps would you take to communicate/teach the material? Please be as
clear as possible. Evaluation – how you will test/measure the effectiveness of your teaching.
6. Resources and Reference Material
(There is no need to list the titles of books.) Please provide a comprehensive list of all resources and reference material available to you. Also list the type of material you may intend to include in the future. Do not list the titles of every publication.
7. Environment
State how you will use the environment and your community to extend and enrich your child’s education. Please include in this a description of any educational visits you hope to make.
8. Social Contact
Describe how you intend to provide for your child’s need for social contact with other children.
9. Assessment and Evaluation
Explain how you are going to assess and evaluate the progress your child is making. Remember, you will need to have some record of this over the years, eg, if your child wants to enter an apprenticeship, this will be needed.
10. Regularity
The legislation requires a commitment to regularity. In explaining your routines, show how you will meet the requirement that your child will be taught at least as regularly as in a registered school. Some parents provide a timetable to meet this request, some describe their integrated approach. You may like to include one of the following:
• Timetable or
• Integrated curriculum description or
• Description of typical routines used.
11. Other Information
Please make any other comments you consider relevant.
BEN’S BIG JOURNEY: Blenheim man Trevor Harris, left, wrote a book about the incredible journey his grandson Nathan’s toy truck Ben made to find his owner after the family moved 200km away. Nathan, 7, is pictured with the book and Ben at Renwick Transport, which also features in the book.
A Tasman Home schooling Family have published a heartwarming story written bytheir children’s Grand Father :
Join our hero Breezemere Ben, the plucky toy truck who starts out on an “incredible journey” to rejoin his family when they move across the Top of the South Island to a new farm; all the way from Marlborough to Nelson’s Motueka Valley. Ben is based on a true story,he belongs to a boy called Nathan and the story is written by his Grandfather.
Ben has many adventures on his 200 kilometre trip, and along the way he discovers new inner strengths. He’s helped by his new trucking friends the Mighty Mack,Roaring Rob and Mailvan Malcolm who tell him “Try hard, do not give up…”, and when he’s feeling lonely and dejected “…never feel you are alone.”
This is a delightful story which you and your children will love to read – and be introduced to some of life’s important lessons: dealing with loss; determination to carry on; co-operation and helping others…
Reviews:
“Whether you live in the Marlborough/Nelson area or not you will still find ’Breezemere Ben’ truly unique. You will enjoy a very well written clever plot, the many facets of a wonderful story and a very lovely ending. You will also learn about this area of New Zealand and the vehicles that drive on it’s roads. It is one book that will be enjoyed by readers of all ages again and again. My family have all loved it read aloud or by themselves”.Sandy mum of four, Blenheim.
A very enjoyable, believable story. Eileen McKenzie, Picton.
“This wonderfully well- crafted story tells of a special little toy truck and his arduous journey through rain and snow,through adversity and hard work to reach his family.Along the way he makes some great friends and remembers the values of his owners to buoy him even in the hardest of times.This story was originally written as surprise Christmas gift to accompany a rejuvenated and repainted truck by Nathan’s Grandad.They decided to publish it,thank goodness they did.It’s a story that is so well written you can’t put it down, and even may like me shed a tear”
Saturday 18 September 2010
Hope Community Church, Ranzau Road, Hope
Come and be encouraged
“Be strong ,courageous, and firm; fear not nor be in terror before
them, for it is the Lord your God who goes with you: He will not fail
you or forsake you.” Deut 31:6
Join us for a day of refreshing. Take time to sit back, relax, socialize,
eat and be spiritually filled. No matter what season of life you are in,
or where you are on the home school journey, come and be filled
with courage.
Come and be encouraged by sitting at His feet and learning His ways…
”that times of refreshing may come from the Lord.” Acts 3 :19
Conference Programme
Venue Hope Community Church, Ranzau Road, Hope, Nelson.
9.30am Venue open, Registration
9:45am Welcome
10.00am “in COURAGE,” – Karen Dawson
11:00am Morning tea
11:30am “Knights in White Satin,”–Phillipa Ashton
12:30pm Lunch
1:30pm “Dare yourself to shine” – workshop with Becky Siame
2:00pm “Virtuous Maidens and Courageous Knights” – Kim Perks
2.45pm Afternoon tea
3:15pm “Destination Unknown – Surviving Life’s Detours,” – Maree Squire
4.00pm Craft-A-Gift to Encourage
5:15pm Dinner
6:15pm Drama
6:30pm Closing Remarks & Dessert
All are welcome. This is a non-denominational conference.
All topics will be addressed from a Christian world view.
Conference Information
Cost $ 40.00
Early Bird – $ 35.00 (If received before 18 August 2010)
All meals, teas, venue hire and craft included in cost.
To Register Complete the form below and return with a cheque made payable to Nelson Christian
Home Schoolers: c/o Rebecca Dawson, 38 Heritage Crescent, Richmond 7020.
Payments can be made by direct credit to Nelson Christian Home Schoolers,
Please contact Karen for bank account details. Please indicate your name on the payment.
For out of town visitors, billets can be arranged.
Enquiries All Billet enquiries to Angela Taylor – 03 541 9065 or email j.e.l.taylor@xtra.co.nz
All other Enquiries to Karen Dawson – 03 544 0752 or email kmdawson@xtra.co.nz
We look forward to seeing you.
With love from
The Refresh Team
Registration Form
Surname Given name
Name badge to read
Address
Tel ( ) Mobile
Email
Method of payment: Direct Credit* Cheque
Billet required? Yes No
* If paying by direct credit please email your details
to Karen Dawson at kmdawson@xtra.co.nz
THE WRONGS OF THE UNITED NATIONS’ RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
By Charles H. Francis, Esq.
Mrs Babette Francis, president of Endeavour Forum, Australia, has given her kind consent for the NCHR, HEF and Family Integrity to publish her late husband’s, Charles H. Francis, essay “The Wrongs of The United Nations’ Rights of The Child” on their websites.
Ruby Harrold-Claesson and Barbara Smith
August 18, 2010.
After World War II, when the United Nations first became established, most people looked to it with hope for the future. Primarily it was envisaged as a world authority, which would serve to prevent wars and act as mediator and arbitrator when disputes developed between member nations. Secondly, as the gross violations of human rights by the Nazi regime became more fully known, the United Nations was seen also as a world body to establish and protect human rights throughout the world.
This essay discusses human rights in the context of the present “rights of the child” mentality prevailing at the United Nations. Legitimate concern for the world’s children has, unfortunately, given way to a dangerous and false vision of an autonomous child with the same objectionable humanist “rights” as any adult. This vision, if given legal effect or legitimacy of any kind, poses a real threat to the authority of parents and to the integrity of the family.
IN THE BEGINNING: CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE AT THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF CHILDREN
Most of the countries that played a major part in the early development of the United Nations and in the drafting of its first declarations had a strong underlying Christian and thus pro-family ethos.[1]
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly fifty years ago, is evidence of this, asserting, as it does, “Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance,” in Article 25(2), and declaring, “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children,” in Article 26(3). The United Nations made similar declarations after this that tended to focus on improving children’s health, nutrition, safety, and education.[2]
There appeared to be a general agreement that such interests were ordinarily best served by keeping children within integrated families and under the care, guidance and control of their parents.
THE TURN TO HUMANISM AND TO DELIBERATE AMBIGUITY
In 1989, the United Nations General Assembly introduced a new Convention on the Rights of the Child. It was promptly signed by 130 nations with, it would seem, singularly little debate or scrutiny and even less intelligent discussion on the legal effect of its provisions.
This Convention was full of platitudinous phrases and contained much ambiguous language. However, many prominent lawyers became aware of the problems and traps within it and lectured and wrote on its proper interpretation, warning their countries not to sign or ratify it. Most of the representatives of the various nations, which rushed like so many lemmings to sign the Convention, probably had no real understanding of its meaning. It was feted as a Convention in the best interests of children, and those nations that signed it were said to demonstrate a commitment to the prevention of child abuse. Those who expressed concern about possible interpretations of the Convention were falsely assured that parental rights were fully preserved by Article Five.[3]
A number of the supporters of this 1989 Children’s Rights Convention also maintained, quite falsely, that its main object was the protection of children, and that it did no more than provide for those rights that were already law in more advanced democracies such as the United States of America. In reality, had legislation setting out similar provisions to those of the Convention been introduced into the House of Representatives in the United States (or in Australia), it would probably never have become law.[4]
By 1989, however, many supporters of humanist philosophies had already realized it was far easier to implement their ideas by incorporating them in United Nations’ Conventions, which their countries might thereafter ratify, rather than by attempting the more difficult (if not impossible) task of trying to pass such provisions through their countries’ legislatures, where they were likely to receive much closer scrutiny, and where the legal interpretation and actual effect of the provisions might be the subject of proper analysis and debate.[5]
In essence, the 1989 Children’s Rights Convention was humanist (not Christian). Humanism denies and rejects God (as well as prayer, any divine purpose and theism generally) and all religions that place God above human desires. Despite its followers’ claims of neutrality, humanism is a secular religion, and is more dogmatic than any church teaching. Humanism recognizes and accepts abortion, euthanasia, suicide and countless other immoral acts, and works for the establishment of a completely secular society, which is its goal. It also realizes that the traditional family, marked by strong parental authority, is an obstacle to this goal and, therefore, seeks to dismantle it.
In consequence, the 1989 Convention gave to children a sphere of autonomy and freedom from control (in particular a freedom from parental control) and thereby introduced a radically new concept of children having rights entirely separate from their parents, with the government accepting the responsibility for protecting the child from the power of parents.
Professor Bruce Hafen of Brigham Young University has wisely pointed out that parents who subscribe to “children’s rights” thinking and “leave their children alone” so they develop their personalities are irresponsibly abrogating their parental duties, leaving their children a ready prey to a wide range of immoral and evil influences.[6]
Indeed, in England some of the strongest support for “children’s rights” has come from well identified homosexual and pedophile organizations, which long ago realized that the easiest way to obtain access to children was to demand their freedom from any form of restraint, thereby exposing them to the predatory behavior of those who would harm them.[7]
While some Articles of the Convention are praiseworthy (for example its prohibitions on slavery and child prostitution), there are five Articles in particular (12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, discussed below) that would create grave difficulties for parents seeking to exercise authority over children. These Articles appear to be the spearhead of a very serious invasion of parental rights.
ARTICLES 12 TO 16
Article 12 is the first to provide a charter of autonomous children’s rights. Its implications therefore require close attention. It assures to a child the right to express views freely in all matters affecting the child, the view of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
But who is to determine what weight is to be attached to those views? Obviously not the parents alone. Article 12 enables children to ventilate their disagreements with parental rulings in primarily public and legal forums.[8] Carried to its logical conclusion, the child will be able to demand state intervention to challenge any parental conduct the child doesn’t like (or conduct the child claims is not in his “best interest”). This is an absurd threat to parental authority.
Article 13 assures to the child the right of freedom of expression, which includes “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.” This Article will prevent parents from protecting their children from objectionable or immoral materials, often disseminated in schools. A recent case in Australia provides a most disturbing example: When a family tried to persuade their daughter’s school that some of its curriculum was inappropriate for young secondary students, the Department of Secondary Education invoked the provisions of the Convention as authority for overriding parental rights and wishes.[9]
We would do well, at this juncture, to consider some material that the United Nations has already approved for children, since we can assume that the Convention on the Rights of the Child would support the unrestricted dissemination of such material to them.
The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has already produced two sex education films, “The Blue Pigeon” and “Music for Two.” “The Blue Pigeon” is a cartoon targeted at 10- to 12- year-old children, and graphically depicts sexual intercourse between two children attending a children’s picnic. “Music for Two” depicts the fantasies of a young girl who foresees herself as tired, overworked and overburdened when married, and her husband as indifferent and uninterested. By contrast, sexual intercourse with a boy neighbor is depicted as a happy, commitment-free sexual relationship.[10]
It takes no genius to discern this message of approval for sexual activity outside of marriage and even for children at a very young age. Parents must understand that this is the type of “information” the United Nations wishes to “impart” to their children.
Article 14 declares “the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” The Convention affords parents and guardians only the limited right to “direct” children in the exercise of this right (although there is no real protection for this right; the state merely gives it “respect,” which, without means of enforcement, is somewhat meaningless). “Direction” of course implies that a parent will not be able to require a young child to go to church or Sunday school if the child does not wish to do so.[11]
American Christian leader Dr. James Dobson has suggested that the real freedom given by Article 14 is freedom from parental control in the area of religion. Parents are relegated to providing a state-monitored influence over the religious practices of their own children.[12]
Article 15 “recognizes” the right of the child to freedom of association and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. Such rights make it difficult, if not impossible, for parents to control the company their children keep, even though that company may be truly harmful. The Convention does not balance these “children’s rights” against those of parents (which should always serve the best interests of children), however valid and compelling. In some Australian towns where young teenage vandalism and crime is rife, teenage curfews have been introduced. Usually they have proved successful, but civil libertarians have already complained that curfews are a breach of Article 15 of the Convention. In this regard, the Convention appears to be directly opposed to the view of the United States Supreme Court, which has held such curfews lawful.[13]
Article 16 protects the child’s right not to be “subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy.” The inclusion of the word arbitrary may permit children to exclude parents from anything they consider private, including medical treatments, and presumably activity in the child’s bedroom or any other part of the home set aside for the child’s use. This Article greatly strengthens the position of Planned Parenthood, which routinely puts young girls on birth control pills without notice to (much less consent from) their parents. The United States Supreme Court has, of course, already upheld privacy rights for children in the context of abortion and contraception. Mature minors (maturity being determined by a judge) can have abortions without any parental involvement, and immature minors may have abortions if the judge thinks it is in their best interests.
THE NEED TO COMBAT THE UNITED NATIONS’ “RIGHTS OF THE CHILD”
The picture should be clear by now: The Convention is a very serious invasion of parental rights. A careful analysis of its terms proves that it is anti-parent. It takes many important decisions regarding the well-being of children (on education, philosophy, morality and religion) away from parents and gives them to the State, and ultimately, to the United Nations itself.
Most great civilizations have been destroyed not from without but from within. In almost every such instance, the breakdown of the family was key to the collapse. Responsible parents realize that children (especially adolescent children) need protection from their own actions, which spring from a lack of mature judgment. The Convention’s invasion of parental control can only make this task more difficult, if not impossible.
The new humanist philosophy, increasingly embraced by so many Western democracies today, and brought to the United Nations by their delegates, has enormous potential for harm, especially when applied to our children. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child reflects this philosophy and is, in many ways, diametrically opposed to what the United Nations had to offer the world in its 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
We desperately need to re-appraise the United Nations’ present direction. We must realize that those humanist philosophies, which masquerade as a concern for human rights, will end up trampling them — just as the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child pretends to protect children, but damages the parental authority that is their best protection. The humanist element of such documents has the potential to destroy all that is best in Christian civilization, replacing it with a profoundly chaotic, harmful and ultimately evil empire.
[1] – The United States and Great Britain were foremost among them. To some extent, the drafters of the postwar declarations were using 20th-century national constitutions as their models, adding the protection of the family and the child to those political and civil democratic rights that they wished to identify and preserve.
[2] – Such declarations included the Declaration of the Rights of the Child in 1959, a valuable document that included Principle 6, providing that “the child shall wherever possible grow up in the care and under the responsibility of his parents.” The 1959 Declaration was in many ways not unlike the 1924 League of Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which had stated that “mankind owes to the child the best it has to give.” The philosophy of the 1959 Declaration was again essentially Christian, and anticipated that, at a later date, there would be further and more detailed provisions.
[3] – Article 5 reads as follows: States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights, and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention. But who is to decide what constitutes “a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child”? When this Article is read in conjunction with the child’s rights contained in Articles 12 to 16, and with the fact that parents have no right of control, it is apparent that this determination is not necessarily to be left to the parents alone.
[4] – The obvious legal implications of Articles 12 to 16, once properly understood and publicized (as they were in the U.S. Senate), are likely to lead to their rejection. (In Australia, the adoption of these Articles as Federal law would necessitate an amendment to the Constitution by referendum.)
[5] – In England, however, some unfortunate features similar to those of the Convention found their way into the Child Act of 1989.
[6] – Professor Bruce C. Hafen, and Jonathan O. Hafen (1996) Harvard International Law Journal 37(2), pp. 449-491.
[7] - See “The Fight for the Family” 1998, Lynette Burrows — Family Education Trust, Oxford, England, ISBN 0 906229 14 6.
[8] - Article 12(2) reads: [T]he child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
[9] – Newsweekly (Australia) January 24, 1998, at 17. The U.N. has a track record in this regard: Its Committee on the Rights of the Child has already criticized England for not having a way for children to dissent from parental views. The Committee’s criticism was made in relation to parents withdrawing their children from school sex education programs that the parents deemed unsuitable. U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, Report on the United Kingdom, February 15, 1995.
[10] – “Behind the Mask of UNICEF,” Population Research Institute Review (1992), Baltimore, MD.
[11] – Professor Bruce Hafen, when speaking in Ireland last year, confirmed this interpretation of Article 14 when he said that a parent who might compel his child to go to Mass could well find himself in breach of this Article. The Irish News, March 26, 1997.
[12] – Satanic cults will no doubt make use (or misuse) of Article 14, which enables them to attract children away from the religions of their families more easily. Such cults are typically interested in young children or adolescents.
[13] – City of Dallas v. Stenglin, 490 US 19 (1989).
How the Convention on the Rights of the Child Will Destroy Family Sanctity
by Aaron Young
The Convention on the Rights of the Child, an international treaty commonly referred to as CRC, is one of the greatest threats to parental rights our country has ever witnessed. Fasten your seatbelts for the fight for ratification.
The CRC’s devastating impact on American children and their families can be seen easily in the text of the treaty and its application in both foreign states and in recent U.S. court decisions. Do not be misled by the arguments of American legislators, legal scholars and transnationalists who say U.S. ratification of the CRC would prove our commitment to the protection of the world’s children and their rights to the international community. The CRC is in no way a harmless treaty; it is an instrument used by transnationalists for widespread social change, beginning right here in our own country. Similar to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) treaty, U.S. ratification will in no way provide the children of the world with any additional forms of protections they don’t already enjoy under United States law, just as CEDAW affords women no rights beyond what they currently enjoy under U.S. law.
The 54 articles within the treaty do not provide American children with any protection from any dangers that they do not already enjoy in the U.S…
Does the workload of the approaching school year seem overwhelming? Do you have a houseful of kids to cook, clean, and care for … all while teaching? Learn to delegate to and motivate the little helpers in your household with advice from a foster mom to almost 50 children. In “Getting Kids to Help at Home,” HSLDA’s Early Years Coordinator Vicki Bentley offers special insight and practical tips that will give you fresh motivation and ideas for training your children to lend a hand around the house. Help your kids learn life lessons and save your sanity on Tuesday, August 17, @ 9:00 p.m. (ET)(Southern Hemisphere, Auckland time: Wednesday 18th at 1pm). Register now >>
Is the economy affecting your family? Are you asking yourself the question, “How Can I Afford to Keep Homeschooling with a Reduced Family Income?” If both you and your spouse are working, do you know the legal implications of a double-income household for your homeschool? Are you looking for practical ideas that will help your family continue homeschooling during hard times? If so, be sure to join HSLDA President Mike Smith on Wednesday, August 18, 2010, @ 9:00 p.m. (ET) (Southern Hemisphere, Auckland time: Thursday 19th at 1pm) as he shares real-life strategies to help you meet your income needs and provide your children with the best education possible! Register now >>
Technology is in the official NZ MoE curriculum statement. Most of us ignore it completely. Technology comes up automatically in our homes; we don’t have to “teach” it. Our children are far more savvy at it than we are anyway. Cell phones, Internet, Social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Bebo and soon something from Google, etc. And who knows what else in the future…
What are parents to do?
After reading Jon Dykstra’s article “Facebook Frenzy” in the January 2010 issue of Keystone, Craig’s instinct was to say, “No” to all technology like cell phones, FB, etc., until the current Young Adult toying with these things leaves home. But what happens when the Young Adult leaves home and then has free access to all of this and no guidance…
Proverbs 22:6 says we are to “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” It is a promise from God. This training does not happen by itself. It is hard work. We get no holidays from training our children.
Technology is one area of the training of our children that we must not neglect. We must be training our children in the correct use of technology while they are at home with us so that when they depart from our homes, they don’t depart from the training we have given them.
A Word in Relation to Parents
Once again, the training of our children in the use of technology, as with all things else, begins with us, the parents. How are we using the technology in our homes? Does it rule us, are we enamoured with it and addicted to it, or do we have dominion over it? If we don’t have the victory in this area, then we need to get the victory. If we don’t exercise Biblical wisdom in using these tools, then we’d better develop this kind of wisdom. Our children will follow our example more than they will follow what we say. They are more likely to do what we do than what we say.
Today we read in our daily family worship around the table a passage from II Kings 17. Verse 41 stood out to me, especially after listening to Craig read through I and II Kings of the succession of kings from father to son in Judah and from one ratbag to another in Israel. Most of them did evil in the sight of the Lord, and even the “good” kings who did do what was right in the eyes of the Lord did not remove the high places. The consequences: II Kings 17:41 “So these nations feared the Lord, and also served their graven images; their children likewise, and their children’s children — as their fathers did, so they do to this day.”
So what “graven images” are we leaving in the “high places” while we also try to fear the Lord, having a foot in each camp as it were, for all our children to see? Are we turning our hearts toward our children as we seek to train them? (Malachi 4:6 and Luke 1:17)
Technology, because of the new dangers each new development seems to introduce, appears to be one of those things that we, as parents, are going to be working on for an awfully long time. We must be like Paul in Philippians 3:12-14 (NKJV): “Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” This mind-set has to be in our own lives before we can expect to see it in our children.
The rapid developments, the powerful applications and capabilities of Technology seem to have taken us by surprise. We ourselves have not been trained in wise use of it, and yet we see now that we really do need to train our children in the wise use of it. We need to search the Scriptures because God was not taken by surprise with all this new technology. He has plenty to say. And we need to dialogue with one another seeking to keep each other accountable to God.
Do we have any of these as “graven images” that we serve?
TV: Are you in the habit of watching TV regularly? What do your children see you watching? What do they watch with you? Are you embarrassed at times with what comes on the screen in the programmes and advertising: nudity, swearing, using God’s name in vain, infidelity, etc.? Or do you wait until all the children are in bed to watch TV? Your children will know this, of course, and will conclude that it is alright to watch TV when they are alone.
Movie Theatre/Videos/DVDs: The variety of the genres, the sheer numbers to choose from, the technical quality and special effects are all incredible! It is probably safe to say that these things are watched primarily for entertainment. Somewhere along the line, our daughter Charmagne brought Psalm 101:3 to our attention: “I will set before my eyes no vile thing” (NIV). “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes” (KJV). “I will not set before my eyes anything that is worthless” (ESV). “I will not set before my eyes anything that is base” (RSV). Now that is a challenge for all of us. So we thought through the meaning of the words vile, wicked, worthless and base. Around about this time we came to the conclusion that it is contrary to our confessions as Christians to sit down to be entertained by gratuitous violence, horror, occultism, immorality, blasphemy, the exultation of evil and the denigration of righteousness. As a result, our family is watching fewer and fewer movies via videos and DVDs.
Computer/Internet: How much time do we waste on the computer? Some of it is good and important, but do we spend time on the computer when we should be spending that time with our children? What sites do we go to? The email discussions, the blogs, the social networks, the buzz, the twitter, etc., are all so much fun, very interesting and sometimes even useful. But do we really need to play another hand of Hearts or get involved again in Mafia Wars or Farmville? Time is also a resource, like the talents given in the parable in Matthew 25:14-30, and the Lord will be asking from us a reckoning of our stewardship. The accounting books we hand over to Him better look good. Yes, He is gracious, merciful, forgiving … and He is also the King of kings and Lord of lords and will not overlook sloth and irresponsibility. He is, oh, so worthy of our very best … and more.
Home schooling Mums come up to me at conferences or ring me up asking for advice. More often than I want to admit, one of the concerns they have is their teenage sons’ addiction to pornography. They ask how they can help get their son off pornography. My first question now is, “Does their father look at pornography?” And usually the answer is yes. We can’t hide our addictions. We must master them. Genesis 4:7 says “Sin is crouching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it” (RSV). Porn is death. You must kill it, for it will kill you.
Cell phones: How do we use our cell phones? Are they a tool? Or is it mostly another form of entertainment leading us into sin?
Remember these verses: “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil,” Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 (ESV). We need to be watching how we use Technology ourselves as well as how we train our children in the use of it. Why? Because we will be giving an account of how we use it and how we train our children in the use of it on Judgement Day.
A Word in Relation to Our Children
We live in such a fast-passed world. When it comes to technology, our children know far more than we do. They pick it up so quickly. We as parents have come to understand this too late for some of our children, but this is no excuse. We need to work at training all of our children, youngsters and young adults alike.
First, if we have been a bad example or a bad influence on our children, we need to master our sin and apologise to our children. What’s done is done, but we need to deal with the past by repenting from it, seeking forgiveness and setting new benchmarks. It is probably best to make it clear that we are compelled by our conviction from God’s word to set new standards. A man-centred resolution to turn over a new leaf generally won’t last the distance. As a family, work together on formulating a philosophy and strategy of using technology to glorify God (I Corinthians 10:31), extend His Kingdom everywhere we can (Luke 13:20-21); be that light on a hill (Matthew 5:14), the ambassadors for Christ, the ministers and messengers of reconciliation (II Corinthians 5:17-20).
As I said earlier, Craig’s first instinct was to forbid all the technology that would lead our children astray. But we would be failing our children if we did this. We must be training them to use technology wisely to the glory of God.
So how do we do this?
We must work on training and strengthening the inside of our children: see Michael Pearl’s article, “Insulate Your Children Within” (http://tinyurl.com/l9ay76).
This will look differently in different families. Michael Pearl talks about beginning young, training them gently and then warning them more strongly as they get older. Or perhaps you might like to heavily supervise until you know your child has mastered technology and only uses it as a tool and to glorify God. Or you might like to restrict the use of technology until the last few years that your child is at home and have intense training at that stage. Or you might like to wait until your child is thoroughly regenerate and is consistently living a life given over to glorifying God. There is no right way yet. There is no proven formula as yet. We are still only just becoming aware of the dangerous aspects of technology; we are not keeping up with the rapid advances, and we are only just starting to formulate our counter-measures. But what we do know is that we must begin training our children in the correct use of technology so that they will not be snared by it when they leave home.
Some Practical Ideas that We Now Use:
TV: We don’t watch TV at all. I mean, like, never. Most advertising is inappropriate. Only the religious TV channels even try to glorify God … the rest have nudity, immorality, swearing, blaspheming God, etc. You cannot fast-forward it. One programme drags you into the next. It kills deep and meaningful discussions. It’s even physically unhealthy: you use less calories while watching TV than while sleeping. A family sitting together watching TV is not quality time together. It is just plain irresponsible for parents to let children have a TV in their own bedrooms.
Movies at the Movie Theatre: (This is not new technology, but some comments will fit in here nicely.) We very rarely go to the movies. You cannot fast-forward the movie. If a scene comes on that you should not be watching, it is hard to escape it. You cannot stop it to discuss with your family like you can with a video. You cannot switch it off like you can with a TV. Because it is so very difficult to get up and walk out, the tendency is to sit there and get further defiled.
Videos/DVDs/YouTube, etc: Videos and DVDs are something that we watch as a family, or Craig might watch some war documentaries with our sons, or I might watch something like North and South with the girls. At all times when watching videos or DVDs, we have our finger near the fast-forward button. We fast-forward all intimate scenes. By that I mean we fast-forward all kissing (anything more intimate, we stop the DVD and get rid of it). We even fast-forward the kiss in Fireproof, even though that one kiss in the whole movie was between a real husband and his real wife: the actress was replaced by the actor’s wife for that scene. But, again, watching any sexual intimacy between others is a basic definition of pornography. Even if the sexual intimacy is moral, that is, between a husband and wife, for others to be watching is at the very least what you call voyeurism … it’s just not edifying.
Our children do not watch videos on their own. We do not like to use videos/DVDs as a baby sitter for our children. Children under two should not sit in front of a screen. Let us quote from this reference: http://tinyurl.com/28tsmtc :
But why does television have such a negative effect on children of this age? “We believe that one reason is the fact that it exposes children to flashing lights, scene changes, quick edits and auditory cuts which may be over stimulating to developing brains” says Professor Christakis. “TV also replaces other more important and appropriate activities like playing or interacting with parents.”
We think this applies to videos and DVDs as well.
We love looking at YouTube clips! But a word of warning: you simply don’t know what’s going to pop up. Be very careful about exploring unknown material with the children watching, although this is also a good training exercise. And some of the other clips displayed on the sidebar can fool you … once you click on it, you can find a lot of junk.
A very good activity is to take a DVD and begin watching it. Stop the DVD at various stages and discuss the good and the bad in it. Discuss why it is good and why it is bad. Discuss how it can be improved. Discuss what the outcome would be if different decisions were made, etc.
Computer/internet: Some families use Maxnet or some other such programme as a protection on their computers. This is a great tool if you want your children on the computer doing their studies without having to worry about them going onto the wrong sites. But this is not training our children in the use of the computer or the internet. It is only protecting them while on that particular computer. And parents need to be very much aware that our children sometimes try to out-smart these programmes and try to get to programmes that have been blocked. I remember once at a Science Centre visit, when we were doing something on the computers there, a farming father put in a couple of words related to his farm activities and a pornographic page come up. The Science Centre said that they had all sorts of protections up on their computers because of schools using them all the time. So we can’t be too careful – we must be watching our children using the computer all the time.
Children can so easily be given a disc or MP3 “with really neat stuff on it you’ll like” from a friend. So if your children do have unsupervised use of a computer, make sure that they run such discs and MP3s past you first. The problem with using Maxnet or similar is that we get complacent about using the computer and forget all the horrible sites that are out there. But we must never forget. What happens when our children visit a friend or family member who does not have these protections on their computer or when they leave home? Again it is very unwise for a parent to let a child have a computer in their bedroom. No, let me revise that: it is pure insanity.
Watch for signs that your child might be getting into websites that he/she should not be on. Some things might be:
1. Always wanting to be on the computer
2. Finding all sorts of excuses for being on the computer.
3. When a job/assignment they are doing takes a lot longer than you anticipated.
4. Whenever you come into the room or walk by the computer, the screen is suddenly minimised. Always question what was closed. Check it out. Check the history if the page was deleted. It is always a good idea to check the computer history often.
5. You see a change in their behaviour – more disrespectful, telling everyone else to pull their socks up, etc.
Computer games are usually nothing more than an incredible waste of time and can also become quite addictive. We know: used to have a thing going with Tetris! Other games are quite evil with all kinds of gory graphics, occultism, killing and maiming people for points … again, this kind of thing is insanity for Christians to be involved with.
Networking sites: Facebook, mySpace, Twitter, Bebo etc These can be incredibly dangerous or a wonderful tool. We have rules for our family:
Our Family Facebook Rules:
1. All emails go to Dad’s email address.
2. Parents only have the passwords.
3. Parents are friends with all their children’s friends.
4. Male children only have male friends on Facebook.
5. Female children only have female friends on Facebook.
6. Exception No. 1 to rules 4 & 5: relations can be of both genders.
7. Exception No. 2 to rules 4 & 5: Children can make application to parents for exceptions to this rule.
8. No more than two quarter-hour sessions per day per child.
9. A parent has to be in the same room and able to see the computer screen at all times.
10. Child has to be at least 16 before getting a Facebook account, or else show clear signs of regeneration and trustworthiness. We allow no accounts with MySpace, Bebo, etc., because, first, we hear too many bad reports about those sites; and second, we’ve already got enough to keep track of with Facebook.
11. No games, and I think I am about to add, “no quizzes”.
12. These rules are related to one’s level of maturity and trustworthiness, are open to negotiation based on these two qualities and may vary from individual to individual (although that seems to be extremely difficult to accept when an older child is offered less privileges than a younger one).
When a male asks our daughter Charmagne to be his “friend” on Facebook, she sends him this reply:
Thanks for the friend request. However, the Smith family has some Facebook policies including one I call our “Pursuing Purity Policy” which means the females of our family have only ladies and relatives as Facebook friends. (There are similar rules for the Smith guys, too.) Thanks anyway! Sincerely, Charmagne.
Charmagne says, “Young or old, almost all the men I send this to answer back in a positive manner.” Charmagne is now 23, and she continues to live with this rule because she has taken it as her own.
There are other dangers with Facebook. There are places where your children can be sending messages to people who are not their friends. This took us by surprise with one of our children. At times we have had to forbid the talking with friends in the chat facility at the bottom of facebook and through messages at the top where they can send and receive messages from non- friends.
Also check the security settings for your children and make sure that they are as tight as possible. Ensure that only the minimum number of people can “see” their pages. The whole world can see Facebook pages now, or you can have a default setting so that only “Friends” can view pages. I guess that mySpace and Bebo, etc., are the same. I don’t know too much about them since we don’t use them and don’t allow our children to.
We need to remind our children to give out the least amount of personal information over the web as possible. There are people out there who pose as children and young people to become friends when in fact they are out to cause trouble and not very nice trouble at that. We cannot be naive about the internet, especially when using networking sites. By only being friends with people we know, we overcome that problem. So tell your children that they are not to become friends of friends unless they know them or are highly recommended by that friend. Be sure you read this article: http://hef.org.nz/2010/social-websites-harm-childrens-brains-chilling-warning-to-parents-from-top-neuroscientist/.
Blogs/Website: Because we have a lot more control over these, we let our children have a website/blog at a younger age. Jedediah got a website at 12. He can pull information and photos from our other websites, including his older siblings’ websites, but cannot go to any other websites unless we are sitting right beside him. He only gets to update his website/blog about once a month. There is very little interaction from others on this. Comments are moderated. Same rules apply as Facebook in regard to passwords, emails and friends.
Emails: Our younger children do not have email addresses. They use our email addresses when they want to send or receive an email. I guess it will be different in each family as to when they let their children get an email address. Jeremiah got his when he needed it for work. We set it up so that all the messages he sent and received came through a parent’s email.
Cell phones: This is a biggie. Put off letting your children have a cell phone for as long as possible. Once they get a cell phone, they become so much more independent. Yet we must realise that as parents, we have no idea what they are doing on the cell phone, even though we are still morally responsible before the Lord for much of what they do (the younger they are, the more responsible we are; the older they are, generally the less responsible we become). Again, this is easier if the child is clearly regenerate and showing obvious signs of commitment to Christ in his or her life.
Watch the phones that your children get. Some phones are very basic and only send and receive calls and texts. Others can do all sorts of things. We only have basic phones and got caught out when we realised that a phone a child had could do so much more than our phones. Know the phones your children buy. Again, ask the questions: “Do they really need a phone for that job?” We let a child get a phone because he really needed it for a job. The job didn’t last that long but the phone did. Do they need a phone that can do so much more than a basic phone? Phones now can send and receive emails, take photos and movies, download movies, email photos and movies, surf the internet and so much more.
You remain in control of the technology in your home: When we see behaviour deteriorating in a child, we are now quick to moderate / re-assess / take away certain technologies from that child. Technology is a privilege. Our children have responded well to this. Well, not initially. But they soon realise that this is part of our training of them, and if they misuse the technology for any reason, then there will be consequences. Both Craig and I have workshops on this. I would like to write mine up one day soon: “Christian Parents Preventing and Changing Rebellion in the Child’s Heart.” Check out this website with some excellent links: http://hef.org.nz/2008/changing-the-heart-of-a-rebel-2/.
Remember that technology can steal your children’s hearts from you. Be very diligent and vigilant to keep your children’s hearts focussed on the Lord, on doing His work and on honouring you.
When tragedy strikes in the delivery room, and the doctor says you must choose which life to save, whose life is more important — the mother’s or the baby’s?
When your aged parents are terminally ill and in constant pain, and they want to go home to be with the Lord, which act is more loving — to take away their food and water and let them die “naturally,” or to continue feeding them and thereby prolong their suffering?
There are 500,000 babies living as frozen, unwanted embryos in clinics across the United States. Eventually their cells will break down and they will die. Should Christian couples adopt these embryos and implant them into the wives’ wombs? Or is that a form of “medical adultery?”
What does the Bible say about birth control? Is use of the Pill lawful or unlawful according to Scripture? How can we end legalized abortion in America? And what are Christians’ responsibilities to defend life in view of the looming healthcare crisis?
These questions offer just a taste of the critical life-and-death issues covered in The Baby Conference Audio Collection, featuring speakers such as Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, Doug and Beall Phillips, Geoff and Victoria Botkin, Flip Benham, Kevin Swanson Jennie Chancey, and many more. Join them as they lay a biblical and ethical foundation for tackling the complex bioethical family issues confronting the Church in the 21st Century. Plus, explore practical ways to build a culture of life through adoption, child-birth, child-training, and more, and celebrate the joy and blessing of life amidst a culture of death—all part of The Baby Conference Audio Collection.
More than 38 hours.
Topics Include:
The Long War Against Babies
The Reward of the Fruitful Womb: Real Families Discuss the Rewards of Raising a Large Family for the Glory of God
Suffer the Children to Come: How to Love Those Children Who are Rejected by the Culture of Death
How to End Abortion in America: A Look at the Spiritual, Practical, and Constitutional Realities
How the Local Church Builds a Thriving Culture of Life
Surviving the First 50 Years of the Pill
Naming Babies
Symposium on Manhood and Babies
Symposium on Top Legal Issues Facing Parents
Fundamental Principles for Reforming Health
Ladies’ Tea with Michelle Duggar
What the Bible Says About Birth Control
Ladies’ Symposium: An Interview with Michelle Duggar
Children As Pets
Symposium on Biomedical Ethics for Birth
Ladies’ Symposium: Why We Must Be Ladies Against Feminism
The Indispensible Role of Grandparents in the Life of Children
The Demographics of Family Life
Michelle Duggar: Mother of the Year
Haiti’s Message of Hope to the Children of America
Symposium on the Hope of Adoption: Lessons for the Future of Adoption from the Great 2010 Crisis in Haiti
Ladies’ Symposium on Managing the Logistics of a Large Family
Symposium on the Future of Healthcare in America: How Must the Church and Parents Respond to Socialized Medicine, Medical Ethical Chaos and the Widespread Abdication of the Professing Church
Child Training: A Biblical Template
The Hopeful Theology of Miscarriage
The Myth of Overpopulation and the Coming Demographic Bomb
Symposium on Biblical Biomedical Ethics for the Infirm and Aging in the 21st Century: Brain Death, Organ Transplants, Euthanasia, and Care for the Elderly
Ladies’ Symposium on Preserving and Promoting the Highest Ideals of Christian Motherhood
What is a fallacy? A fallacy is an error in logic – a place where someone has made a mistake in his thinking.
These are fallacies:
“A cloud is 90% water. A watermelon is 90% water. Therefore, since a plane can fly through a cloud, a plane can fly through a watermelon.”
“This new book, The Fallacy Detective, must do a good job teaching logic. It has been on the bestseller list for months.”
We wrote this book to meet the needs of Christian parents who want a do-able text for introducing logic and critical thinking to their children.
Fun to use – not dry like a math textbook.
Self-teaching – not intimidating, starts students with skills they can use right away.
Each lesson has exercises for students, with an answer key at the back.
Covers logical fallacies and propaganda techniques. We divided the most common fallacies and propaganda techniques into thirty-eight lessons. We explain how you can spot fallacies, and we give exercises to stretch your abilities for detecting fallacies.
Geared for ages twelve and older – we suggest using The Fallacy Detective before advancing onto more difficult logic programs.
Includes The Fallacy Detective Game, giving you and your friends an entertaining way to spot and make up your own examples of fallacies.
Christian view of logic. Many critical thinking texts introduce political correctness. This book does not.
Can be used before or after The Thinking Toolbox
Cartoons to illustrate the logical fallacies discussed, including Peanuts, Dilbert, Calvin and Hobbes, and several original cartoons
This book is for fallacy detectives. We’ve designed this book to be a handy-dandy text for learning to spot the errors in thinking that you meet everyday on the street, in the newspaper, or on television – or errors you make yourself.
Venue: Presbyterian Church of Hawthorn, 580 Glenferrie Rd Hawthorn, Melbourne 3122,
Cost: $20 per family or $5.00 per session (including grandparents). If you are in genuine financial difficulty, please contact us, and we would love to help you.
PARENTS should ban internet connections from children’s bedrooms, experts say, after research shows students are neglecting their studies to spend time on social networking sites.
A Telstra survey reveals about a quarter of children spend seven hours a week or more on sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
Half of the parents surveyed believe their children’s education is suffering.
Cyber-safety expert Dr Martyn Wild said parents should place computers in family areas such as lounge rooms to keep schoolchildren focused on their studies.
“You wouldn’t let your kids stay out socialising with their friends until all hours on a school night, but that is exactly what they are doing online, often right under their parents’ noses,” Dr Wild said.
“The answer is not turning off internet access. Rather it’s about implementing simple behavioural changes in your children and setting realistic expectations about their use of the internet.”
The research, by Newspoll, showed social networking sites were particularly popular with teenagers aged 14-17, with 84 per cent logging on.
“With older students, parents and carers will need to develop the trust for these students to exercise their own judgments about balancing online play and work sensibly and responsibly,” Dr Wild said.
“I don’t suggest you become an internet Big Brother – just be aware of when and what your kids are doing online and be prepared to set realistic guidelines.”
Parents have also been urged to monitor their children’s use of the internet via their mobile phones and on hand-held gaming devices.
Recent Comments