Tag Archives: MoE

HPV Immunisation Programme – Guinea Pigs or Sheep

Posted on by

Guinea Pigs or Sheep
The Government’s Ministry of Health sees all our daughters as either guinea pigs on which to perform a massive, nation-wide experiment or as sheep who need to be sloshed through the dip or hit with the ol’ drench gun whether they need it or not…just in case.

It’s all in a good cause, of course. They want all parents to make an informed consent about subjecting their daughters (aged 12 to 18) to a series of three injections over a six-month period of Gardasil® vaccine to hopefully reduce the incidence of cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is not nice. It usually leads to death, but it may only mean sterility and/or disfigurement if caught in time. It is caused by some types, not all types, of the human papillomavirus (HPV).

So the schools are going to give these jabs to the girls for free, older girls starting this month, and they’ll target the 12-year-olds starting in 2009. The drug is licensed for girls aged as young as 9 and as old as 26, but if you’re not in year 8 or have already left school, too bad…you’ll have to pay for it yourself at $450 for the course of three.1

How does one get this HPV anyway? Sexual intercourse.

The comprehensive condom education in schools in not enough. That is because condoms provide little protection against HPV, and HPV infection is the most common STD. So the friendly makers of Gardasil® have struck a deal with the Ministry of Health, to sell them…I mean, to provide millions of doses of this potentially life-saving drug. Granted, it only protects against the two HPV types that cause 7 out of 10 cervical cancers,2 but at a cost of only $16 million a year, it seems a bargain. And it will certainly keep the friendly folks at Gardasil® happy.

How bad is this problem? About 200 women a year develop cervical cancer in NZ at present and around 70 die from it per year. The vaccine should reduce the death rate to 30 a year. The Ministry of Health’s National Screening Unit (NSU)1 says the following factors increase the risk of getting cervical cancer:
* having first sexual encounter at an early age
* having more than one sexual partner: increased incidence of the cancer is proportionally linked to an increase in the number or partners;
* having a partner who has HPV, was sexually active at a young age or who has had more than one sexual partner.

The NSU says other factors linked to getting cervical cancer include:
* smoking
* the use of oral contraceptives
* a weakened immune system.

Now, the material sent to me by the Ministry of Health, in order to recruit my help in getting home educators into this vaccination programme, does not mention any of these risk factors. Actually, it said virtually nothing of any use at all.

The Ministry of Health website to which I was referred2 does say that the vaccination may only last for five years, but with near-universal vaccinations through the schools’ guinea pigs, they may find it gives longer-lasting protection. The NSU website,1 however, says it may take as long as 20 years for an HPV infection to turn cancerous. It also says that women who have never been sexually active hardly ever develop cervical cancer and that very few women with HPV actually develop the cancer. In addition, getting a tri-annual cervical smear test will eliminate the risk of developing the cancer by 90%. Both sources said that women should continue to get smear tests regardless of whether they ever got the vaccine or not.

After reading all of that unpleasant stuff, I concluded the vaccine was of very little practical value, even if you do accept the flawed and (to many) the outrageous assumption that most teenaged girls are sexually promiscuous. The programme is obviously quite a gold mine to the makers of Gardasil® and keeps a lot of people in the MoH, the MoE, the Office of the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commission all happily busy spending our tax dollars. I have declined getting involved with the programme.

Notes:
1.http://www.nsu.govt.nz/Current-NSU-Programmes/2480.asp
2.http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/immunisationdeseasesand vaccines-hpv-programme-questions#cause

From: TEACH Bulletin, September 2008, Number 125, P O Box 9064, Palmerston North

MoE/ERO Reviews

Posted on by

Some-one asked on hefnetnz http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hefnetnz/ and Trademe Message Board http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=29810245&threadid=29810245

“Is it TRUE that the MoE have decided to review every home schooled child in the next 12 months?”

Here is Craig’s answer:

Gidday all,

I think you can relax about this. Back in 1997/8 it was found that
neither the MoE nor the ERO actually had the legal authority to conduct
reviews of home educators. The Education Legislation Amendment Act (No.
2) closed up that loophole by adding sections 328A through 328D to the
main Act plus a couple other bits and pieces. So now it appears that the
ERO (not the MoE) has the power to order either general or specific
Reviews. The MoE buys a certain number of Reviews from the ERO each
year, about 600 or so, I believe. That’s just under 10% of the home
educated children out there.

For all of the approximately 6,500 home educated children to be reviewed
in the next 12 months would be a massively expensive logistical exercise
in terms of money, time and personnel. It won’t happen. They have to
give each of you one month notice (don’t ever accept less than this),
and then some of you will sadly inform them that the date they suggested
is totally out of the question for this or that reason.

It wouldn’t hurt to, at this time, check out what the Education Act
actually says in this regard. You can go to:

http://www.legislation.govt.nz

and click on “Acts” search and then type in “education act” under “quick
search title”, then click the first item in the list, “Education Act
1989” and read through Sections 323 through 328D. It doesn’t hurt to
have a squizz at the enrollment, attendance and exemption bits in
Sections 20 through 35A and the bit about truancy officers in Section
31. It is all very instructive.

I cannot find anywhere in the Education Act or any of its Amendments
that any school is required to teach anything in particular. Section
35A(1)c requires private schools (not state schools) to inculcate the
sentiments of patriotism and loyalty, but I cannot find that state
schools are required to do any more than be open and provide teaching of
a secular character…that is, it doesn’t appear to me that schools are
required by law to teach reading, writing, arithmetic or anything else.
And a read through Sections 60 through 64 does not convince me that even
state schools are required by law to follow the national curriculum
guidelines, which themselves don’t seem to require much of anything
either, except sexuality education all across primary and secondary
years.

Regards,

Craig Smith
Moderator, Hefnetnz

National Director, Home Education Foundation

Parents to get truancy reminders

Posted on by

ttp://www.stuff.co.nz/nelsonmail/4666609a6007.html

Parents to get truancy reminders

By MARCUS STICKLEY – Nelson | Monday, 25 August 2008

Parents could soon start being prosecuted for taking their children out of school for a holiday, a Nelson principal says.

Primary schools have been reinforcing attendance rules with parents after receiving reminders from the Education Ministry to do so.

Under the Education Act, every pupil enrolled at a registered school must attend the school whenever it is open. Ministry guidelines say it is up to principals to decide whether an absence is justified.

Parents can be prosecuted for not sending their children to school, and fines of $15 a day – up to $150 for a first offence – can be imposed if they are convicted.

Hampden St School principal Don McLean said that for a school to prosecute a parent for taking their child away on holiday would be a “bold thing to do, but maybe it’s not too far away”.

In his school newsletter in May, he told parents that the ministry was taking a “tougher line on attendance and have clearly defined what a justifiable absence is and what truancy is”.

“Some of you may be surprised to hear that if you take your child on an overseas trip in school time, this is considered an unjustified absence and therefore your children are recorded as truant.”

Similarly, a week-long ski trip during school time would also be unjustified, he said in the newsletter.

Mr McLean told the Nelson Mail the school kept a record of pupils who missed school due to family holidays, and he planned to “take parents aside” to discuss the issue if they did it regularly.

“We have to get tough on them.”

However, he said the rules were “one size fits all”, which he did not agree with.

If a pupil was travelling to a destination such as Europe, the cultural education they would get could be more valuable than what they would learn in the classroom in that time, he said.

Mr McLean said four children were currently away overseas, mostly for family reasons.

“There seems to be a lot at the moment.”

Hampden St School parent Andrew Meffan has taken his two children on week-long skiing holidays to Wanaka during the school term in previous years.

He said he planned to do the same next week, staying with members of his extended family in a house that was available to them only at certain times during the year.

“But we don’t want to be on the wrong side of the rules and have a truancy officer knock on our door.”

Mr Meffan said truancy rules needed to be targeted appropriately.

“There needs to be more of an evaluation of cases based on the student and family, and commitment to learning.”

St Paul’s Catholic Primary School principal John Dorman said he had received a letter from the ministry before the start of the school year, saying schools should not condone parents taking their children out of school for holidays.

Craig wrote this letter to the editor:

25 August 2008

Letter to Editor

Nelson Mail

Nelson

The idea of schools threatening parents with truancy notices for taking their children on holiday demonstrates one of the more obvious characteristics of state schooling institutions: that they are simply prisons or child warehouses, designed to baby-sit kids and keep them off the streets.

A holiday with the family, the MoE apparently informs the schools, is not a “justified” absence from school. So the MoE equates a geographical/cultural/social field trip with a child’s parents and siblings to hanging around the mall or sitting at home watching videos all day. The MoE demonstrates again its disconnection from the real world. Any formal notification by the parents that they are taking the child out of the schooling institution should be justification enough: the parents’ authority should trump that of the MoE any day.

Regards,

Nationwide contact for home education enquiries – homeschooling NZ

Posted on by

Needing help for your home schooling journey:

https://hef.org.nz/2011/needing-help-for-your-home-schooling-journey-2/

And

Here are a couple of links to get you started home schooling:

https://hef.org.nz/getting-started-2/
and
https://hef.org.nz/exemptions/

Contact details:
Craig and Barbara Smith
06 357-4399
email: barbara@hef.org.nz
Greetings all,
There have been a couple of requests lately for people willing to give exemption advice and encouragement.
Just a reminder that this is precisely what we at the Home Education Foundation are here for!
We help with preparing for exemptions and ERO reviews, how to understand and answer the exemption questions, we sit in on ERO Reviews with people, and I’ve even been a witness at a court case involving home education and socialisation. We have tons of material on socialisation, research results in both academic and social areas, ideas on curriculum development and getting into university and links to other information that we send out for free. We have 22 years of experience in teaching our own 8 children aged 28 down to 3 (yes, we’re still at it) and running conferences and speaking in nearly every corner of the country. Barbara just talked a mum who was full of panic through her ERO review preparation, and the mum passed with flying colours! I just wrote a letter to the Hamilton office of the MoE about what I thought was unfair treatment in an exemption application…the mum emailed today to say the exemption just came through!
Being a charitable trust, we do not charge for anything we send out or for our advice, even though most phone calls last between a half hour to a full hour or more. We trust the Lord to move people to make donations as they see fit and to subscribe to Keystone https://hef.org.nz/category/keystone-magazine/ and TEACH Bulletin https://hef.org.nz/category/teach-bulletin/. Although we personally are committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Home Education Foundation is committed to rescuing ANY children out of state schooling institutions and to giving as much help and encouragement as we can to any and all parents and grandparents wanting to have a go at home education.
So don’t hesitate to get people to ring us or send an email. We don’t have an 0800 number but if people ring us on a landline, we can ring them back so we pay for the call since it costs us next to nothing.

Applying for an Exemption to Home School

in New Zealand


Here are two very helpful  links

The first is a cut down version of the exemption application, showing you exactly which comments the Ministry of Education (MoE) expects you to reply to:

https://hef.org.nz/2010/making-an-application-for-exemption-from-enrolment-and-attendance-at-a-school/

The second is a lengthy letter giving all kinds of tips on how to answer the comments:

https://hef.org.nz/2010/a-collection-of-exemption-tips-and-ideas/

I’d suggest reading those two, having a go at answering the questions, then give us a ring (06) 357-4399 or emailing your phone number and we will ring you (email barbara@hef.org.nz).

It seems complicated at first, but it really isn’t that bad at all. We can talk you through it. All free of charge. That’s why we’re here.

Websites and blogs:

If you have a website or blog then please feel free to repost this on your website or blog and/or to link to these pages on your website or blog.

MoE Management Centre Offices to which one must apply for Exemption Certificates

Posted on by

MoE Management Centre Offices to which one must apply for Exemption Certificates

http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentId=5908&indexid=2107&indexparentid=1000#P1_488

Auckland
12-18 Normanby Road
Mt Eden
Auckland
Private Bag 92644
Symonds Street
Auckland
Tel: (09) 632 9400
Fax: (09) 632 9401
email: enquiries.auckland@minedu.govt.nz

Hamilton
Corner Victoria St & Marlborough Place
136 – 150 Victoria Street
Private Bag 3011
Hamilton
Tel: (07) 858 7130
Fax: (07) 858 7131
Fax: (07) 858 7132 (Network Division)
email: enquiries.hamilton@minedu.govt.nz

Lower Hutt
19 Market Grove
PO Box 30177
Lower Hutt
Tel: (04) 463 8699
Fax: (04) 463 8698
Fax: (04) 463 8697 (Network Division)
email: enquiries.wellington@minedu.govt.nz

Christchurch
39 Princess Street
Private Box 2522
Christchurch
Tel: (03) 378 7300
Fax: (03) 378 7302
email: enquiries.christchurch@minedu.govt.nz

Dunedin
414 Moray Place
Dunedin
Private Bag 1971
Dunedin 9054
Tel: (03) 471 5200
Fax: (03) 471 5201
email: enquiries.dunedin@minedu.govt.nz