The UN was asking for submissions on
SAFETY AS AN ELEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION AND A PRECONDITION FOR ITS FULL REALIZATION. See in the link below. I wanted to address No 3 where it mentioned homeschooling.

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/469899334_475568778471237_1018001646066697710_n.docx/Safety-in-education-Questionnaire-for-WEB-EN-1.docx?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=2b0e22&_nc_ohc=IVO0N02hjLkQ7kNvgHTJPoo&_nc_zt=7&_nc_ht=cdn.fbsbx.com&_nc_gid=A_3nrGElIqQafeefj3jjyHi&oh=03_Q7cD1gF94Wp-A6I971geTVvdnfLySWFV2wWl24MHJjsEIV35Og&oe=676ACBCF&dl=1#no_universal_links

I put in two submissions:
1. On behalf of the Home Education Foundation in New Zealand
2. A personal submission as a resident of Australia

Submission by the Home Eduction Foundation, New Zealand
on
SAFETY AS AN ELEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION AND A PRECONDITION FOR ITS FULL REALIZATION

I would like to address

3. What are the national regulatory approaches to monitoring and ensuring safety? These may include licensing, accreditation, monitoring of compliance with safety requirements and the work of oversight bodies. Are there different safety requirements for public and private educational institutions and safety requirements for homeschooling and private tutoring?

The law in New Zealand for home education/homeschooling is very clear and is outlined in the following link: https://hef.org.nz/getting-started-2/education-law-in-new-zealand-for-home-schoolershome-educators/

New Zealand continues to face the challenge of ensuring all children and young people receive an education appropriate to their needs, interests and aspirations. https://tikatangata.org.nz/human-rights-in-aotearoa/right-to-education

International Law: The Right to Choose Education
Parents have a right to choose what kind of education their children will receive. This right was not given to them by any legislating body or human authority but by the word of God (Ephesians 6:4; Deuteronomy 6:7). However the right is supported by multiple human rights instruments under international law. New Zealand is a signatory to the first three of these conventions and the following three show that this human right is universally recognised in all places.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) Article 26 (3) – “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976) Article 10 (1) and 13 (3)3— “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976) Article 18 (4)4 – “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000) Article 14 (3)3 – “The freedom to found educational establishments with due respect for democratic principles and the right of parents to ensure the education and teaching of their children in conformity with their religious, philosophical and pedagogical convictions shall be respected, in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of such freedom and right.”

European Convention on Human Rights (1952) Protocol 1, Article 2 – “No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

American Convention on Human Rights (1969), Article 12 (4) – “Parents or guardians, as the case may be, have the right to provide for the religious and moral education of their children or wards that is in accord with their own convictions.” Article 13 (4) – “In conformity with the domestic legislation of the States Parties, parents should have the right to select the type of education to be given to their children, provided that it conforms to the principles set forth above.”

The Care of Children Act
Parental rights are further evidenced and safeguarded by New Zealand’s Care of Children Act 2004, which provides that a child’s parents or guardians have the right to make decisions on important matters affecting the child, which include “medical treatment for the child”, section 16(2)(c), and “where, and how, the child is to be educated”. section 16(2)(d).

The Care of Children Act (2004) section 16 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) Article 26 (3) says: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” Whanau who embrace active learning as a lifestyle, children benefit much from this learning in the context of family mentoring. It is violation of the rights of the parents for the Government to force them into a registered program.

Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. https://hef.org.nz/2012/human-rights-in-new-zealand-today-the-right-to-education/

The Bible calls parents to educate, protect, train up, and prepare their children for adulthood.

You might say that this is a lifestyle choice but we do not understand it as such. We believe that it is the parents’ God given responsibility to be educating their children not the Government.

The Education Review Office and Ministry of Education in New Zealand say Home Education has been found to be low risk. In July 2009 the Ministry ceased carrying out routine reviews of home educators, saying “This programme is considered to be low risk to the education priorities of the Government. “A senior member of the Education Review Office wrote in personal correspondence, “The reality is home schooling has been found to be low risk.”He went on to note that home educators make use of support networks, that home education is seen as a viable option, and that the ERO has received “mostly positive” feedback on home education. http://hef.org.nz/2009/no-more-ero-reviews/

We live in a society which celebrates diversity in many shapes and forms. In particular, New Zealand is known for its wide acceptance of diverse cultures and religions. While the government has jurisdiction to ensure some things, including that children are not abused, it has no jurisdiction (other than self appointed) to either define or “reinforce” social norms. To attempt to do so is an encroachment on the rights of the citizens it claims to represent. This is especially true when the said “social norms” are defined in terms of participation in government funded and controlled programs. This is not to say that those programs are undesirable, but only that compulsory participation is an encroachment on the rights of individuals and parents.

The government has no electoral mandate to legislate “social norms”. In 2008 the National Party campaigned heavily on ending what it termed “the nanny state”. In many ways the legislation of “social norms” goes further in that regard than many things which caused that label to stick to the Labour Government of the day. While acknowledging the Government’s manifesto and the Prime Minister’s Key Result Areas, there is a huge gulf between what a Government wants to achieve by way of participation in its social programs and enforcing participation.

Again, there are two fundamental issues here. This first is the possible encroachment of Government on what should be family decisions. The second is the government possibly holding up a standard of what it considers “social norms” as a defacto standard of good parenting.

Summary:
Because standards which are appropriate in large industrial school settings, may be unfairly used to discriminate against marginalized groups, such as ethnic or religious minorities, especially those who must educate in alternative facilities or homes, to prevent their unique cultures from being discriminated against and to preserve their rights to self-determination. Engaged parties should take care not to harm or place undue burden on viable community alternatives.

Removing or effectively severing children from their communities of origin has long been a tactic that undermines parental and children’s rights, including their cultural identity, family cohesion, and access to community-based support systems. Such actions not only disrupt the child’s sense of belonging but also weaken the collective ability of communities to preserve their heritage, exercise self-determination, and advocate for their rights within broader societal structures.

While acknowledging the importance of applying rigorous standards to centralized state actors to ensure accountability and fairness.

Lastly I propose that the right of parents to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children be formally acknowledged and protected.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Barbara Smith
National Director
Home Education Foundation
www.hef.org.nz
barbara@hef.org.nz
New Zealand

************************************************************
Submission by Barbara Smith, Tasmania, Australia on
SAFETY AS AN ELEMENT OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION AND A PRECONDITION FOR ITS FULL REALIZATION

I would like to address

3. What are the national regulatory approaches to monitoring and ensuring safety? These may include licensing, accreditation, monitoring of compliance with safety requirements and the work of oversight bodies. Are there different safety requirements for public and private educational institutions and safety requirements for homeschooling and private tutoring?

I would like to make this submission as a private citizen who has home educated eight children first in New Zealand, then in Tasmania, Australia. I am now heavily involved with the education of my 30 grandchildren (only one not being home educated).

The Care of Children Act (2004) section 16 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) Article 26 (3) says: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”

The Bible calls parents to educate, protect, train up and prepare their children for adulthood. More than simply a lifestyle choice, it is the parents’ responsibility to be educating their children, not the Government.

Everything about me as a mother screams that it is the mother’s role to love, nurture, protect little children. Children need to connect with adults and their parents are clearly the best people to love them, care for them, protect them, and educate them.

My motto as a mother is that I want my children to walk away from me when they’re ready, rather than watch me walk away from them. This produces happy, secure children. In fact my children are in three Countries at the moment. If my motto produced clingy children they would still be around their home town. My children are confident and they are contributing fully to society. I believe that they are like this because of the firm foundations of their lives when they were home educated and secure in their relationships in our family. They never needed to be insecure about being left alone with strangers because it never happened to them. It is cruel to the children for them to be forced away from the security of their parents.

I am very well aware of this as we have adopted 3 children and we have one under guardianship. I have studied the emotional needs of children and have spoken on this at conferences many times.

Babies in the womb attach to their mothers. Once born they attach to the rest of the family.

When children are forced away from their family bonds they detach from their mother and family and reattach to other adults in their lives. This becomes a problem in ECE centres and schools when the adults keep changing around. So these children keep attaching and detaching throughout their early childhood. They are also learning to be dependent on their peers. The result of this is peer dependency and also multiple romantic relationships. Multiple romantic relationships also lead to divorce. This attaching and detaching scars children and adults alike. We then learn to guard our hearts from being hurt. Then we struggle for the rest of our lives to have meaningful relationships.

I want to keep my 3 – 5 year old children home from ECE and my 6 -16 year old children home from school.

Children don’t need other children to learn how to be children but they do need to be around adults to learn how to be adults.

So the VERY BEST place for educating children under the age of 5 is in the home and 6-16 year olds is the home. Please don’t give the children second best.

So leave the mothers in the home please.

Dr Raymond Moore, who has done extensive research in this area of separating children from their parents says this inhibits natural scholarly aptitude: “Harold McCurdy, a distinguished psychologist from the University of North Carolina and a leading student of genius, says that genius is derived from the experience of children being most of the time with adults and very little with their peers. So when you start assembling children in very large numbers for long periods of time you are on the wrong course for producing children of character and intellect. The more children around your child, the fewer meaningful human contacts he will have.

Success of home education/schooling
The is an old article but still a good one. The writer set out to write an article against home education but ended up writing about it’s success after studying home education with an open mind: https://hef.org.nz/getting-started-2/home-based-education-not-does-it-work-but-why-does-it-work-so-well/

Again, there are two fundamental issues here. This first is the possible encroachment of Government on what should be family decisions. The second is the government possibly holding up a standard of what it considers “social norms” as a defacto standard of good parenting.

Summary:
Because standards which are appropriate in large industrial school settings, may be unfairly used to discriminate against marginalized groups, such as ethnic or religious minorities, especially those who must educate in alternative facilities or homes, to prevent their unique cultures from being discriminated against and to preserve their rights to self-determination. Engaged parties should take care not to harm or place undue burden on viable community alternatives.

Removing or effectively severing children from their communities of origin has long been a tactic that undermines parental and children’s rights, including their cultural identity, family cohesion, and access to community-based support systems. Such actions not only disrupt the child’s sense of belonging but also weaken the collective ability of communities to preserve their heritage, exercise self-determination, and advocate for their rights within broader societal structures.

While acknowledging the importance of applying rigorous standards to centralized state actors to ensure accountability and fairness.

Lastly I propose that the right of parents to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children be formally acknowledged and protected.

Thank you for considering this submission.

Barbara Smith
Tasmania, Australia
www.hef.org.nz
barbara@hef.org.nz
Australia