Church & Nation Committee Presbyterian Church of Victoria 156 Collins Street

Church & Nation Committee Presbyterian Church of Victoria 156 Collins Street

Melbourne VIC 3000

20/02/17

Education and Training Reform Regulations Review Attn: Strategic Policy Division

Department of Education and Training GPO Box 4367

MELBOURNE, 3001

SUBMISSION ON THE DRAFT EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFORM REGULATIONS 2017

The Church and Nation Committee, Presbyterian Church of Victoria, has concerns about the Department of Education’s new proposed regulation of home educators in Victoria. Of particular concern is the increased powers it gives to the Victorian Reporting and Qualifications Authority (VRQA) to control home education in Victoria, especially the proposed regulation that the VRQA will be deciding who ‘can and cannot’ home educate.

Parents have the right to make decisions about education:

Australians prize highly the freedom to choose the kind of education they want for their children. Parents, having the natural responsibility to bring up and maintain their own offspring,arefreetochoosethekindofeducationtheybelieveisbestfortheirchild.Whether theychooseastateoraprivateschool,ortoeducatetheirchildrenathome,istheprerogative of the parents, not the state. These parental responsibilities are reflected in various human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR).1

Thereoughttobeapresumptionthat,ordinarilyspeaking,parents,knowingtheirchildbetter than anyone else, are most suited to make decisions in the child’s best interests. In general, neitherthestate,noranyotherbodyorinstitution,ismorereadilyabletomakeprovisionfor childrenbetterthantheirparents.Whilethestatehastherighttosetminimumstandardsof education,itdoesnothavetherighttodictateparentalchoiceastohowaparentchoosesto ensurethosestandardsarefulfilled.Thisisaninappropriatepowerwhichnogoverningbody shouldhave.

1Inparticular,ICESCRArticle13.3whichspeaksof‘thelibertyofparents…tochoosefortheirchildrenschools… andtoensurethereligiousandmoraleducationoftheirchildreninconformitywiththeirownconvictions.’See CORCArticle18.1whichisconcernedwithparentalresponsibility:‘Parents…havetheprimaryresponsibilityfor the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.’ UDHR, Article26.3:‘Parentshaveapriorrighttochoosethekindofeducationthatshallbegiven totheirchildren.’

Home education is a valid educational choice:

The validity of the parental choice of home education should be presumed by the state as a legal and reasonable educational pathway that can be very beneficial for children. Home education can provide high-quality, tailored education to children by motivated parents. School-based learning is not the only way students learn, and indeed, many home educating parentshavechosentowithdrawtheirchildrenfromschoolbecausetheschoolsystemfailed to teach them. Any proposed regulation should be beneficial for home educators and supportive of their choice to take the time and effort to educate their ownchildren.

The proposed regulations overstep the boundaries of the Education Act:

Division2,point4.3.9(1)oftheEducationTrainingandReformAct(2006)stipulatesthatthe Authority (VRQA) may ‘register a student for home schooling in accordance with the regulations’ but registration can only be cancelled if (i) the parent or student ‘refuse permission to authorised officers of the Authority to review the educational program, material or other records used for or related to the home schooling of the student to determine whether the requirements of the registration or the regulations relating to home schooling are being complied with; or (ii) the parents or the student fail to comply with the requirements of the registration or any regulations relating to homeschooling.’2

ThereisnothingcurrentlyintheActgivingtheVRQApowertodecidewhois‘appropriate’to home educate, nor to refuse a home education application on any other grounds except for failing to comply with the regulations or the registration process. The proposed regulations alsostatethattheVRQAcouldrefusetoregisteraparentforgiving‘insufficientinformation’

–butitisnotclearhowmuch,orindeedwhatkindof,informationwouldbegarneredbythe committeefortheirdeterminations.Theregulations,ingeneral,proposemuchgreaterpower for the VRQA, but with an almost total absence of detail, namely, the fundamental criteria being used to assess home educators. These increased powers, coupled with very vague details about implementation, give grave doubts to home educators that the proposed regulation will be supportive of their educationalchoice.

The proposed regulations override fundamental human rights:

The criteria to submit to the VRQA in advance, before withdrawing a child from school, also overrides fundamental parental rights and freedoms to adequately care for their child and addresstheirbestinterests.Ifaparentfeelsthatachildisbeinginanywayharmed,neglected or mistreated, or that there is potential for that to happen, parents always have the right to remove that child immediately from such a context. Similarly, if a child is clearly not learning and having increasing difficulty with the school system, they have every right to immediately withdrawthechildandtakeontheireducation.Todolesswouldbechildneglectperpetrated by the parents. Parents are often already reluctant to pull their child out of school, even if a situationisclearlynotworkingforthechild.Toincludetheaddedrequirementthattheymust ‘plead their case’ before an authority, waiting months until they are ‘registered’ for home education, is simplyabsurd.

2Education and Training Reform Act 2006,p.281.

We know from history that the state, in general, makes a bad parent. The state should only interveneinparentaldecisionswhenthereisaclearcasetobemadethatthechildisindanger or there is evidence of neglect or harm. The current regulatory framework allows for intervention where there is a complaint of neglect of a child’s education, and at that point the state can intervene to assess the progress of achild.

The VRQA becomes a law answerable to itself:

The committee is also concerned that the VRQA is not answerable to a higher power and there is no body of appeal which could be sympathetic to home educators who might be denied or refused registration. It seems that the VRQA could only be held to account by the VictorianCivilandAdministrativeTribunal (VCAT)onthebasisofwhetheritfolloweditsown processes.AtleastonememberoftheVRQAneedstohavehadhomeeducationexperience, oranappealscommittee,whichincludeshomeeducators,couldbeassembledtoensurethat home educators do not receive unfairdiscrimination.

The proposed regulations are largely punitive:

Itiscleartomanyparents,childrenandteachersthatschool-basededucationdoesnotwork for every child. We know that the school system often fails to help children learn effectively. For many parents, home education is the only way they can see their child progressing in learninginawaythatbenefitsthem.Giventhesefactors,itisdisappointingthattheproposed regulations will restrict rather than support home education. The proposed regulations are largely punitive in nature and have an implicit bias against homeeducators.

The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) suggests that the aim of the proposed tightening of regulation is ‘in case’ home educated children are being disadvantaged. However, the report acknowledges anecdotally that home educated children seem not to be disadvantaged and havenotroublegettingintohighereducationinstitutionsandemployment.3Furtherresearch is required to get a clearer picture of home education before more restrictive measures are enforced; regulation in place of research is never goodpolicy.

Assuch,theChurchandNationCommitteeofthePresbyterianChurchofVictoria,makesthe followingrecommendations:

1.Thatparentalchoice,towithdrawachildfromschoolandtobeginhomeeducation, be not restricted by regulations, where parents believe that their child’s best interests are not being met. The ability to remove a child from school could occur any time, not after home education registration has been granted, nor before November 30 as stipulated in the proposedregulations.

2.ThattheVRQAacknowledgehomeeducationisavalideducationalchoicewhichcan be freely made by a parent while acknowledging that it involves a high level of parental directive andresponsibility.

3‘Ingeneral,however,researchhasfoundmanyhome-schooledstudentshadnodifficultymakingthetransition to schools or tertiary education institutions, and achieved results equal to greater than their peers (Jackson 2014).’ Draft Education and Training Reform Regulations, 2006, Regulatory Impact Statement,p.26.

3.That further research is commissioned on home-educated students to get a clearer picture of the kind of education home-educated students are receiving before proposing newregulation.

4.That any proposals giving VRQA powers of ‘veto’ be modified to reflect the following:

a)the presumption of a parental right to homeeducate

b)the presumption of the validity of home education as a learningpathway

c)that the Authority should not refuse an application unless there is compelling evidence that the child is significantly at risk of an inadequate education as detailed in Schedule 1 of theAct.

d)that should the Authority refuse or review an application, it sets forth the reasons in writing, giving opportunity of appeal and/or re-application when significant concerns areameliorated.

Sincerely,

Rev. Darren Middleton

Church and Nation Committee Presbyterian Church of Victoria.