May 8, 2021

NO MORE Home Schooling ERO REVIEWS!!!

NO MORE Home Education ERO REVIEWS!!!

Echoing then Minister of Education Dr Lockwood Smith in 1994, that he could not justify the expense of regular reviews on such a low-risk group as home educators, Chief Review Officer Graham Stoop wrote in February this year that reviews of home educators are not efficient or effective. Posted on the ERO website is the following: “From 1 July 2009 ERO will carry out reviews only when requested by the Secretary for Education, or in other particular circumstances.”

This is in line with the present central government’s drive to cut bureaucratic costs. Minister in charge of the ERO, Anne Tolley, said in February: “I have asked ERO to identify schools that are performing consistently well and, accordingly, from March 1, these schools will be exempt from the current three-yearly ERO reviews and will instead be reviewed every four to five years.”

In December 2008, the Finance Minister advised Cabinet to do a line-byline review of expenditure. Home Education reviews were found to account for $283,000 out of a total budget of $28,675,000 or 0.987% (less than 1%). Graham Stoop wrote: “This programme is considered to be low risk to the education priorities of the Government. In 2007/08 ERO completed 644 homeschooling reviews from a total of 6,169 homeschooled students [at an average cost of $439.44 per review]. ERO could not provide assurance that the terms of exemption were being met in only 35 of the 644 reviews [a 5.4% “failure” rate]. This has been the pattern over many years.”

About 35 reviews a year will continue to be made, reviews initiated by the MoE as a result of concerns brought to the Ministry’s notice about particular home educating families. It was felt by home educators in discussions with the ERO back in the years from 1994 to 1999 when no regular reviews were being held, that the bad eggs rose to the top and became very obvious to everyone. Consequently, more exemptions were revoked during that time, with fewer reviews being held, than in the years prior to 1994.

A senior member of the ERO, with much experience in dealing with home education reviews, wrote the following in an email dated 30 July:

The reality is home schooling has been found to be low risk. Several things stand out in my mind relating to home schooling and they are:

  • home schooling families have support from other homeschoolers and access to people through support networks and
  • through the Internet;
  • home schooling families are no longer isolated unless they choose to be;
  • there is easy access to a considerable range of resources;
  • the skills of home schooling parents are well used;
  • home schooling is being seen more as a viable educational option;
  • ICT is a powerful communication and information gathering tool and home schooling families use this tool;
  • people liked the affirmation that home schooling reviews affirmed good practice; and
  • despite initial concerns the feedback ERO has received relating to the home school review process is mostly positive.

This person also felt that home  education reviews would not be reinstated for quite some time.

Conjecture will not be slow among home eduators in relation to “what will the MoE do now? Will they make it more difficult to get an exemption?” There is no particular reason to believe this, apart from the obvious fact that National has the same totalitarian tendencies as does Labour…they only tend to move a bit slower. This coalition with the ACT Party, however, does change things a bit.

Heather Roy of the ACT Party is an Associate Minister of Education… home education fits perfectly into their philosophy of freedom of choice for parents in education and freedom of self determination in how to order one’s family affairs.

Back in 1995, the MoE instituted, for one year only, voluntary written reviews wherein home educators wrote to the MoE about how their home education enterprise was doing. The MoE said they really enjoyed reading the reviews as it was the only feedback they ever got from home educators after issuing the exemptions, the ERO being the ones to contact home educators after that. But the MoE also caught a lot of flak as a result of requesting these reviews, being accused of going outside their statutory powers in asking for such reviews and of trying to get home educators to  incriminate themselves, etc.

What we home educators need to remember just now is that the current coalition government with ACT MPs holding Ministerial portfolios means we have friends in Parliament and an officially friendly MoE philosophy for the time being. This is a time to raise the flag of accomplishments, achievements,  discoveries, the joys, benefits and satisfactions of the home education option to the population at largeand to the MPs in particular.

From TEACH Bulletin

No 130 July 2009

To see the rest of the articles in the July 2009 TEACH Bulletin:

https://hef.org.nz/teach-bulletin/

or

https://hef.org.nz/category/teach-bulletin/

July TEACH Bulletin 2009

NO MORE Reviews!!! Page 1

The Excellence of Home Education Page 1

Inter-Party Working Group – for increasing parental and student choice in education Page 2

Sweden Page 3

United Kingdom Page 4

NCEA Grades Dubious Page 5

A Bit of Political Advice to Home Educators page 5 https://hef.org.nz/2009/a-bit-of-political-advice-to-home-educators/

Coming Events page 8

Prime Minister turns down offer to call off referendum

Email correspondence released today confirms the Prime Minister John Key turned down an offer to call off the referendum and save taxpayers money.
Kiwi Party Leader and Petition organiser Larry Baldock said he had made a genuine offer that could have put the whole matter to rest.

“It seems that the same man who rushed to make a compromise deal with Helen Clark and Sue Bradford in 2007 is no longer interested in finding sensible solutions,” said Mr Baldock

On April 18th, 2007 John Key’s reported position was very clear when he said, “If Labour really believes that ‘light smacking for the purposes of correction’ will not be outlawed, then they need to explain that. But no matter how you read this bill in its present form it will be illegal to ‘lightly smack for the purposes of correction’.

Last week, after fudging on the question for more than 4 years, Sue Bradford herself finally admitted on National Radio that every parent who uses a light smack or any reasonable force for the purpose of correction was now a criminal in this country, regardless of whether they are eventually prosecuted or not!

John Key then went on to say, “The way to send a strong message on child abuse is to make the law clear and precise and then to police it strongly and vigilantly. This bill as it stands does the opposite. For me, a result that sees the criminalisation of parents for a light smack is simply not on the table.”

In May 2007 the whole nation was shocked by the news that John Key was willing to suddenly change the National party’s position on the anti-smacking law and strike a compromise deal with Helen Clark and Sue Bradford.

I recall John Key explaining his actions then on the basis that the Anti-smacking law was a bad law, but since the Government had the numbers to pass it anyway, he felt responsible to do what he could to minimise the harm the law could cause to parents and families all over the country.

Now that he has the power to amend the ‘bad law’ he seems to have completely changed his position and thinks his amendment has made it into a ‘good law’. In the email reply to my offer, Wayne Eagleson wrote, “As the Prime Minister has indicated publicly on a number of occasions, the government is of the view that the current law is working.”

Perhaps the Prime Minister would take the time to explain to Glenn Groves who was recently convicted of assaulting his 7 year old son for nothing more serious than shoving him in the back, how well his amendment to the ‘bad law’ is working.

My proposed amendments as outlined in the attached  correspondence (posted below)  would remove the criminalisation of good parents,” said Mr Baldock.

Ends

Contact
Larry Baldock
021864833


Proposal to withdraw the referendum


From: Larry Baldock
Sent: Wednesday, 17 June 2009 2:23 pm
To: Hon. John Key (MIN)
Cc: Hon. Bill English (MIN); Wayne Eagleson (MIN)
Subject: Proposal to withdraw the referendum.

The Prime Minister,
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
June 16, 2009.

Dear Prime Minister,
In the interests of saving our country most of the estimated $9 million to complete the referendum, Sheryl Savill, the petition proposer, and myself would withdraw the referendum, (as per Sec 22A (1) of the CIR Act 1993) in return for an agreement by yourself to amend the current sec 59 of the crimes Act in the following way.

Delete the following sub clauses from the amended Sec 59,
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.
(3) Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1),

In this way, the criminalisation of parents who use some reasonable force to correct and train their children would be removed, whilst the other clarifications in Subsection (1) of the permissible use of reasonable force would remain.
Your amendment emphasising the need for the police to use discretion could also remain.

I would be happy to discuss these proposals with your officials and act promptly to call off the referendum and save the hard-earned money of the taxpayers of New Zealand.

Yours sincerely,
Larry Baldock.

““““““““““““““““““`

On 18/06/09 11:45 AM, “Wayne Eagleson (MIN)” <Wayne.Eagleson@parliament.govt.nz> wrote:

Dear Larry,

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply on his behalf to your email regarding the s59 referendum.

As the Prime Minister has indicated publicly on a number of occasions, the government is of the view that the current law is working. On that basis, the Prime Minister does not support your proposed changes to the law.

With respect to the issue of the cost of the referendum, the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday that while he was concerned at having to spend $9 million, with a legal process having triggered the referendum it would be followed through on.

Thank you for writing to the Prime Minister on this issue.

Yours sincerely,
Wayne Eagleson
Chief of Staff
Office of the Prime Minister
Ph: 64 4 817-9365 or 64 21 709 067
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Test of Democracy In Parliament Today

MEDIA RELEASE

27 August 2008

Test of Democracy In Parliament Today

Family First NZ says that there will be a test in Parliament today of whether NZ is a democracy that represents the voice of New Zealanders.

Independent MP Gordon Copeland is seeking the leave of the House for a debate on a motion that the House recommends to the Government that that anti-smacking referendum be held at the same time as the General Election. (Under section 22AA (5) of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993, a Referendum can be scheduled for polling day if the “House of Representatives passes a resolution requiring the indicative referendum to be held on the polling day for the general election.” A postal vote can also close on Election day.)

“That is an ordinary 50% majority vote in the House,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “We are therefore calling on all politicians to acknowledge the voice of 310,000 signatories to the petition and require that the Referendum be held at the most obvious and effective time of the upcoming election.”

In a recent online poll by TVNZ, 81% of the 4624 voters said that the referendum should be held at the same time as the election.

“The excuses presented in the Cabinet briefing paper simply don’t stack up,” says Mr McCoskrie. “The paper acknowledges that better organisation such as separate ballot boxes and colour coding would solve many of the problems experienced in 1999.”

“It is also an insult to voters to suggest that voters would be confused by an extra question in the ballot box. Voters have been able to grasp the far more difficult MMP voting process,”

Family First NZ is also disappointed that the Deputy Prime Minister Dr Michael Cullen yesterday refused to allow acknowledgement of the huge effort put in by organisers of the two petitions on this issue which obtained more than 600,000 signatures. (The second petition fell just short of the required numbers).

“Democracy is defined as being where the people have a voice through their elected representatives. Today will be a test of whether we do live in a democracy,” says Mr McCoskrie.

ENDS

For More Information and Media Interviews, contact Family First:

Bob McCoskrie JP – National Director

Tel. 09 261 2426 | Mob. 027 55 555 42

California Children Still Considered State Property

“Are parents mere drudges whose social duty is to feed and house their spawn between mandatory indoctrination sessions at government-approved schools? The answer could determine not only the future of homeschooling but the future of education in America.”

And New Zealand…………….

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/08/19/california-children-still-considered-state-property/

Thomas A. Bowden

California Children Still Considered State Property

In a decision being widely hailed as a victory for parental rights, a Los Angeles County court has confirmed, grudgingly, that homeschooling “is permitted under California statutes.” In so ruling, the court reversed an earlier decision that ordered the parents of “Rachel L.” to send her away to a public or private school, where she could get a “legal education.”

But where’s the real victory for parents’ rights? Rights identify actions you can take without permission. A true victory would have been a judicial declaration that parents have an absolute right to control their children’s upbringing–and that they therefore don’t need government permission to educate their children as they see fit.

Instead, as this decision makes clear, California’s parents are expected to accept the status of perpetual supplicants, knees bent and backs bowed down to an all-powerful legislature that can decide at any moment to revoke its homeschooling “permission.”

Neither the state nor “society as a whole” has any interests of its own in your child’s education. A society is only a group of individuals, and the government’s only legitimate function is to protect the individual rights of its citizens, including yours and your children’s, against physical force and fraud. The state is your agent, not a separate entity with interests that can override your rights.

To give parents a permanent victory, California would need to make its law consistent with America’s founding principles. Parents are sovereign individuals whose right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness includes the right to control their child’s upbringing. Other citizens, however numerous or politically powerful, have no moral right to substitute their views on child-raising for those of the father and mother who created that child.

Instead, a proper legal system recognizes and protects parents’ moral right to pursue the personal rewards and joys of child-raising. At every stage, you have a right to set your own standards and act on them without government permission. This parental right to control your child’s upbringing includes the right to manage his education, by choosing an appropriate school or personally educating him at home.

Of course, there are certain situations in which government must step in to protect the rights of a child, as in cases of physical abuse or neglect. But no such concern for individual rights can account for California’s arrogant assertion of state control over the minds of all school-age children residing within its borders.

Education, like nutrition, should be recognized as the exclusive domain of a child’s parents, within legal limits objectively defining child abuse and neglect. Parents who starve their children may properly be ordered to fulfill their parental obligations, on pain of losing legal custody. But the fact that some parents may serve better food than others does not permit government to seize control of nutrition, outlaw home-cooked meals, and order all children to report for daily force-feeding at government-licensed cafeterias.

By confirming that homeschooling is legal in California (at least for the time being), the recent court decision will undoubtedly quiet the shockwaves that were threatening to impact the apologists for government education–teachers’ unions, educational bureaucrats, and politicians. Their political and financial survival depends on a policy that treats children as, in effect, state property–but they have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, when the undiluted collectivism of that policy is trumpeted publicly.

The defenders of public schooling can now go back to papering over their system’s own failures??the very failures that helped fuel the homeschooling movement, by driving desperate parents to seek refuge from the irrationality, violence, and mediocrity that have come to characterize government education, in California and elsewhere.

But what if parents stopped groveling and started asking whether the state has any right at all to be running schools, dictating educational standards for children, and “permitting” parents to homeschool their own kids? This would call into question the moral foundation of public education as such.

As the smoke clears from the current round of litigation, the battle lines remain as they were, clearly drawn. Are parents mere drudges whose social duty is to feed and house their spawn between mandatory indoctrination sessions at government-approved schools? Or are they sovereign individuals whose right to guide their children’s development the state may not infringe?

The answer could determine not only the future of homeschooling but the future of education in America.


Thomas A. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on legal issues. A former lawyer and law school instructor who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland, his op-eds have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Los Angeles Daily News, and many other newspapers. Mr. Bowden has given dozens of radio interviews and has appeared on the Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes.

Silence is Golden – “Don’t Talk to the Police”

12 June 2008 Family Integrity #398 — Silence is Golden

 “Don’t Talk to the Police” by Professor James Duane

and

“Don’t Talk to the Police” by Officer George Bruch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc


Watch an engaging and fascinating video presentation by Professor James Duane of the Regent University School of Law, explaining why — in a criminal matter — you should never, ever, ever talk to the police or any other government agent. It doesn’t matter if you’re guilty or innocent, if you have an alibi or not — it isn’t possible for anything you say to help you, and it’s very possible that innocuous things you say will hurt you. Definitely worth half an hour of your time. Also hear a rebuttal from Virginia Beach Police Department Officer George Bruch, who says that Professor Duane is right.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gidday all,

Here again at the bottom is the Stuff article proposing new powers for Police to issue safety orders on the spot (forbidding one person from going anywhere near another person, persons or place) merely on suspicion of “family violence”. Vindictive elements of society are able to wreck havoc on families of whom they “disapprove” by making anonymous tips to police without fear of “civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings” against them “unless the information was disclosed or supplied in bad faith” (CYPF Act 1989, Section 16). Such people are now defacto part of the government spy network, with unelected yet powerful bureaucrats such as Cindy Kiro publicly saying she wants to see neighbours dob each other in for mistreating their children. Problem with that, of course, is some neighbours think home education, instruction in Christianity, eating meat, not eating meat, not getting vaccinations are all acts of abuse.

The outrageous outcome of the twin murder case of the Kahuis — noone is to be charged with their torture and murder — is at the least instructive to us who feel we may be maliciously accused due to vindictive elements of society using the every-parent-is-guilty rewrite of Section 59. And the instruction is: Silence is Golden. Say nothing. Or if you say anything at all, let it be the phrase, “I have nothing to say.”

Most of us do not like this at all. I don’t like it. I prefer to believe that Truth will prevail and that our police believe and seek the same. Then I remember the Arthur Allen Thomas case, the David Bain case, the cops acquitted recently for pack rape when they were manifestly guilty of grossly immoral and unprofessional conduct at the very least. I also prefer to operate on the assumption that I have nothing to hide and welcome an inspection. (Or if I’m guilty, I am willing to face the consequences of my guilt.) But then I remember the many home educators I’ve personally dealt with who have, for whatever reason, received negative ERO reports, usually because the review officer appeared to have a bad hair day (although I’ve also witnessed straight-out anti-Christian prejudice.) Then I remember two successive top ERO staff in charge of the home schooling unit tell me, in nearly the exact same words, that they can tell within 30 seconds of entering a home whether they’ll be getting a positive or negative report…to me this speaks of a wholly subjective process based on things the ERO officer sees, senses, smells and hears rather than on the facts of the case. Then I also remember ex-Labour MP Margaret Autin telling me face-to-face that if she had it her way, home schoolers would be subject to every OSH, MoE, ERO regulation in the book because we are, in her eyes, defacto institutions! Then I remember a past MoE official, one who processed all exemptions for the lower North Island, telling me that at least 50% of the MoE staff at head office would shut all of us home educators down over night if they could.

Then I watched these two video clips, one by a lawyer, the other by a career policeman specialing in interviewing (he says they no longer use the word “interrogate”) suspects. It is American and set against the American written Constitution. Nevertheless, it clearly explains how fallible human foibles can nail innocent persons. It also explains why we have certain “rights” as citizens and yet how easily and casually we will waive those rights because of sheer ignorance and naivite.

You owe it to your family to watch this video clip and fully internalise their contents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

***

And here are two more links from another Lawyer:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZePEy7OxV9s

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsoY9VxSsIc

 

Regards,

Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389

Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz

 

Our Home….Our Castle

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4579630a11.html

Police get new powers in domestic incidents

By BEN FAWKES – The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 11 June 2008

Police who attend suspected domestic violence incidents will have the power to issue “on the spot” safety orders lasting up to three days under tough law changes proposed by the Government.

The safety orders are part of a raft of changes announced by Justice Minister Annette King to the Domestic Violence Act and welcomed by support groups.

The safety orders would last for up to 72 hours and could be issued in circumstances where police suspected domestic violence but did not have enough evidence to make an arrest.

Other proposals include stiffening the penalties for breaching court protection orders, with a maximum penalty of up to two years jail to give judges an “appropriate sentencing range”.

“When you get problems, often deaths, it is when you get breaches of protection orders,” King said.

The courts would also be allowed to consider making protection orders on behalf of victims and access to counselling programmes for both offenders and victims will be improved.

The proposed law changes were currently being drafted and were expected to be put before Parliament within weeks, King said.

Chief Families Commissioner Rajen Prasad welcomed the proposals and said he hoped they would contribute toward a reduction in domestic violence.

“Better enforcement by the police and courts and better access to programmes will improve safety in families and encourage people to seek help to change their abusive behaviour.”

National Network of Stopping Violence national manager Brian Gardner also backed the proposals, particularly the safety orders which he said had worked well in Western Australia.

“It gets the men out of the house and gives them time to cool down and allows the victims to think about what they can do to keep safe.”

Allowing courts to impose protection orders would give financial relief to victims who he said were currently having to pay around $1500 “on a good day” to obtain a protection order, Gardner said.

But the proposals received a scathing response from the National Party, who said the Government was copying its own policies.

“We believe giving police the ability to issue on-the-spot protection orders for suspected victims of domestic violence will be very effective in putting their immediate safety first,” National’s law and order spokesman, Simon Power, said.

Violent crime had risen by 32 per cent under the Labour Government and Power said on-the-spot safety orders were first mooted by National Party leader John Key last November.

“On-the-spot protection orders are a good idea, we believe they will work, and are flattered Labour thinks so as well.”

King said the initiatives pre-dated National’s announcement and were the result of more than a year of research.

“The discussion paper went out in December last year … it had been worked on for months before that.”

—–Original Message—–
From: Ruby Harrold-Claesson 

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7:16 PM
Subject: SV: Police get new powers in domestic incidents

Hi Everyone!

They talk about “abusive behaviour”. What about the abusive behaviour of the CYFS and the children who are being told that their parents do not have the right to correct their unacceptable behaviour?NZ has discrimination against children and Rödeby Cases around the corner.

At present, through the NCHR, I am involved in a case in Stockholm in which the 10-yr old daughter of Pakistani parents – both social workers educated in Sweden – informed her school teacher that her parents had smacked her. The girl was taken immediately (April 14, 2008). Since then they have not been allowed to see or talk to their daughter. In the meantime, they questioned her younger brother, who told them he had not been smacked. He too has been taken into care. The girl has retracted her statement but no one will listen to her. The Administrative Court in Stockholm confirmed the care order on May 30, and the parents and the children are totally devastated.

The parents also face criminal charges for assault of their children.

What a crazy country Sweden is! And NZ has joined the ranks!
What beats me most is that as many as 22 countries have adopted anti-smacking laws and that the European Council and the UN recommend that ALL countries should have such a law! Well, I’m sure that neither Jamaica nor France will follow suit.

Kind regards

Ruby

http://www.nkmr.org

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)