A Submissionfor

Education and Training ReformRegulations Review

2017

Firstly, regarding Anna Cronin's letter to Mr Simon Kent, Deputy Secretary of the Policy Reform Group in the Department of Education and Training.Following the link to this document is a statement which says “Stakeholder feedback was considered in the preparation of these documents” and yet throughout all three documents I find minimal reference to stakeholder feedback either directly or, particularly in the light of my understanding of the Home Education Network's attempts to have input, indirectly. Importantly, Anna Cronin's letter does nothing to assure me that these regulations are better, in fact I find constant reasons for concern within all three of these documents, including this letter.

Anna Cronin says that there is "limited data" on homeschooling, making the RIS at best "qualitative" and "based on judgements and assumptions of the Department". Is this the best that Victorians can expect? In regards to homeschooling, there are numerous ways the Department could have gathered an enormous amount of data on homeschooling in general or within Victoria itself, which would have made the RIS a far more useful, more quantitative document, based not on judgements and assumptions but on broader views and facts. NSW held a Public Inquiry and their process is still ongoing with further consultation scheduled across the state in the coming months. There are reports by universities who have studied homeschooling internationally including examples from Australia that could have been referred to. I studied Sociology at university level including subjects in Social Research, and I find no evidence of adequate research; additionally my studies inform the opinion that regulation changes are not a method of gathering data, yet this is clearly the intention of the Department as described in the RIS.

Further, the letter states that there will be a need to “gather more data” from 2018 onwards to “inform a 'midcycle review' in 2022” and then goes on to describe the data gathering in the processes of reviews. Again, this is backwards, changing regulations and then gathering data is not methodical social research and will do nothing to improve the Department's understanding of homeschooling let alone the educational outcomes of homeschooled children.

It seems the Department's dog at their homework. I find it unacceptable that adding limited data to qualitative research and basing these on judgements and assumptions of only a government department gains approval from the office of Better Regulation. As an Independent Advisor on the adequacy of analysis presented in an RIS, Anna Cronin should have been sending this Department to lunchtime detention for incomplete homework, not giving a tick of approval.

In particular detail, I would like to address the adequacy of the RIS. Contradictory to Anna Cronin's letter, the RIS does not “meet the adequacy requirements of the Act” which are described in the previous paragraph to this statement of approval.

Firstly, the RIS is not “logical” - with paragraphs like those on p.31 stating that augmented requirements on parents may discourage some families from registering and then adding an illogical and irrelevant comment about registration fees in parentheses (how is a lack of fee an inducement to accept onerous requirements?); or on p.37 stating that the new requirements may result in non-registration and adding an illogical solution to this as being to provide information to current and applicant homeschoolers (if they're not registered or registering, they won't get that information!).

Secondly, the RIS did not “draw on relevant evidence” and itself clearly makes statements such as “little is known” or “lack of information” and even makes incorrect statements such as “data is limited” and “little representative empirical evidence” when a simple Google search brings forth a plethora of information relevant to provide evidence particularly relevant to home education. The Department only needed to look over the border into NSW or across the Strait to Tasmania to find excellent evidence. Evidently they failed to do so, even the comparisons with other states outlined in the RIS lack accurate details.

Thirdly, the RIS is not “transparent about any assumptions made”. Anna Cronin's letter as I have already mentioned says clearly that the RIS is based on assumptions of the Department. The RIS openly makes regular assumptions about what education means (i.e. school), where definitions

of learning are found (i.e. curriculum) and how assessment should be described (outcomes); it also assumes data and evidence are unavailable (when they are) and states this and other opinions and assumptions as fact (when they are not). Most of all, it is not transparent about the assumption that the Options are ways of effectively addressing the issues, it puts them forward as the only possible and reasonable actions – this is a critical assumption and, being incorrect, renders the RIS a useless document for achieving better regulation.

Fourthly, the RIS most certainly is not “proportionate to the proposal's expected effects” and the method of quantifying effects as detailed in the section titled “Assessing options” gives minimal consideration to the wide ranging effects of the proposal. For example, it addresses financial costs only in terms of the VRQA's new responsibilities and completely ignores the costs involved in children re-entering the system (especially those with special needs funding required) and it addresses costs to parents in financial terms which are completely irrelevant and ignore the greatest financial cost in homeschooling – that of a loss of an income with a parent staying at home. It also addresses effects to parents but completely overlooks the detrimental effects on children who desperately need to be in a non-school environment for varying but equally critical reasons (from giftedness to special needs, from loneliness to abuse, from mental health to physical health) and yet the proposed regulations do not protect children at all, and so we see that the effects of the proposed regulations are most unexpected and certainly not in proportion to what was in the RIS.

And finally, the RIS has provided absolutely no “suitable basis for public consultation”. It openly admits to the need for further consultation in coming years and further reviews of the regulations' effectiveness! How is this efficient and effective either in terms of forming regulation or in terms of public consultation? The RIS has somehow allowed the Department the ability to completely avoid adequate consultation prior to writing the draft, it even says so few responses were made during the initial period of submissions and that those received are “unlikely” to reflect the views of the whole community. This is directly opposite to Anna Cronin's comment that stakeholder feedback will be particularly valuable.

We know this final criticism is true, because her comments are not referring to the small percentage of the RIS pertaining to homeschooling, they refer to the entire RIS and hardly anyone outside of informed homeschoolers seems to have even heard about the draft regulations at all. Every time I have contacted a school or an Educational institution about the draft, they do not know what I am referring to. This means that, like most homeschoolers, they were not aware of any evidence gathering, were not consulted about effects, were not engaged in the consultation, and most likely are not making submissions because they weren't suitably informed.

From this we can then assume that they won't be aware of the data gathering and mid-cycle review post-2018 through to 2022. And we can also assume that if the tighter regulations do not deliver outcomes as hoped, then further tightening of regulations or guidelines will be the obvious response of the Department. This is unacceptable, and certainly not assuring us of Better Regulation.

The mention of the RIS as being prepared for sunsetting regulations is also concerning, especially when it comes to the failure of the VRQA to conduct any reviews when they've had the power to all along in the last ten years which, along with in depth consultation with stakeholders, could have informed the Department more fully and well in advance of the sunset. It's as if Better Regulations and the Education Department are saying “Let's not address the failure of the VRQA to exercise the power they already had, let's just give them MORE power.” Surely it is obvious that this is very poor logic!

I conclude my comments by urging Anna Cronin to perform the function of her office to “support departments in developing and implementing evaluation plans” by not waiting until the following year but rather insisting that the Department re-write the RIS and therefore the regulations they so ruefully inform, OR at minimum take into consideration submissions such as this in evaluating the regulations before they are established. Along with Anna Cronin, we homeschoolers would welcome the opportunity to work with the Department to develop regulations that are BETTER.

Secondly, regarding the RIS, sections pertaining to homeschooling pp.21-44.If there was one thing I could highlight out of this entire document, it would be the opening paragraph which states clearly:

“The Education and Training Reform Act 2006 recognises the right of parents to choose an appropriate education for their child. It also provides for a child of compulsory school age to be either enrolled at school or registered for home schooling.”

Nobody on any side of politics or on any side of the debate surrounding these draft regulations would argue with this one statement. It supports the right of parents, it describes adequately the two possible methods of delivery along with the government requirement of enrolment or registration, and it indicates a child-centred degree of appropriateness. However, from this important starting point, the RIS and the Draft Regulations and the information in the official and non-official media statements and emails from the Department of Education and the Labor Party ministers, most notably Mr James Merlino, depart significantly from the simplicity of these statement. They add expectations to and they subtract power from the parents, and they centralise their interests and not those of the child.

But since this one thing is clearly not adequate in the eyes of the government, then this one thing is not adequate for me to highlight alone, so I will proceed to comment further.

BackgroundThe Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA) is responsible for the registration and regulation of home schooling. Under the Act, the VRQA:

• registers students for home schooling• assures minimum standards in home schooling• authorises officers to request and review evidence of registered parents’

compliance with the requirements of the registration or any regulation relating to home schooling

• cancels the home schooling registration of a student if the parents or the student fail to comply with the requirements of the registration or any regulation relating to home schooling, or refuse to provide authorised VRQA officers with evidence of compliance.

Since the purpose of the draft regulations has been clearly defined as seeking to assure minimum standards and review evidence of compliance, this paragraph clearly lays the failure of this occurring prior to 2017 on the VRQA whose responsibility it was to do so. If not, the fourth dot point would indicate that the tiny number of cancellations (noted as only seven in the following quote) over the last ten years proves that there is next to no cause for a change in regulations.

This current situation gives the VRQA all the power it needs to achieve those outcomes and I find the arguments in the RIS trying to show otherwise to be quite ridiculous.

The Act empowers the VRQA to investigate a complaint from a member of the public about the standard of education being provided to a home-schooled child, as part of its general obligation to maintain minimum standards in home schooling (section 4.2.2(1)(g)(ii)). The VRQA received seven complaints about home schooling families in 2015-16, and 10 complaints in 2014-15 (VRQA 2016a). The complaints mostly related to concerns from the public or family members. If a matter relates to child safety, then the VRQA refers the complaint to Child First for investigation. If a registration is found to be non-compliant with the registration conditions, the registration may be cancelled.

The public, whether they be friends or neighbours or professionals such as medical staff or other specialists, along with family members, who one assumes also know and love the child/ren concerned, give adequate protection from neglect. Further to this, Child First or other government agencies only add to this protection, not because the VRQA refers complaints to them but because they would of course be investigating a child's enrolment or otherwise.

Additionally, the RIS says here that the registration may be cancelled. It does not say, as the regulations clearly do, that non-compliance will result in cancellation of registration. The RIS rhetoric sounds benign, the regulations sound threatening.

Home-schooling approaches range from formal and structured to more informal and abstract methods (NSW Parliament Legislative Council 2014).The RIS then goes on to list methods, which I do not find exhaustive. Others that come to my mind are radical unschooling, world schooling, pre-packaged curriculum, co-operative family education, and partial enrolment.

I also find it odd that elsewhere it says “little is known about home education methods” and that “data needs to be gathered”. Clearly what happens worldwide in home education is likely to be happening in Victoria. If the NSW government could find all this out, why didn't the Victorian government attempt to do the same prior to 2017?

Families may use a combination of approaches (NSW Parliament Legislative Council 2014) and change styles over time. Research has noted that home education becomes ‘less school like and more informal over time as [families] gain experience and confidence in their children’s learning abilities and outcomes’ (Jackson 2014, p. 10).If this is accepted as true, why do the regulations insist on the application including a learning plan which they will most likely require to be “school like” (although we don't know because it doesn't indicate any criteria of any sort – a major issue that will be mentioned often) and why not help parents, or at minimum just ensure that parents, connect into support groups or curriculum providers, or even make Distance Education available?

My cynical side questions is this why the one-off plan is reviewed after the first year? Does the government hope that the initial plan will be so significantly departed from over time that VRQA will just be able to assess parents as failing and cancel their registrations? The degree to which the draft regulations seem to attack homeschooling brings me to draw this as a possible conclusion!

Between 2008 and 2015, the number of home-schooling registrations increased by 164 per cent. This significant growth is also occurring in other states and territories.This is indeed significant growth, yet this growth is a good thing, not something to restrict or attack and over-regulate. I could point out here that perhaps this growth is because parents are concerned about what is happening in schools... but not all parents home educate because of problems with schools. Rather, homeschooling is an increasingly recognised, viable and desirable method of education! And given that the growth is across the nation, surely working together with other education departments in a cross-party broad-ranging nurturing and inclusive manner would allow growth to continue?

In summary, the section on Background does not provide an adequate basis for the RIS and overlooks many important things. It raises some key points which are not followed up later in the RIS or reflected in the draft regulations, and also raises some key questions which are not addressed or go unanswered.

Base case and its consequences

It is clear from these provisions that the Parliament intended a regulatory framework for home schooling. In light of the requirements of the Act, having no regulations to detail the registration process would not enable the regulator to give effect to the legislative intent.It seems quite obvious to say that Parliament intended a regulatory framework for homeschooling. And it could have gone without saying the second sentence. In fact the definition of Base Case as given in the RIS is utterly irrelevant, is it not? At minimum the government could roll over the current regulations. I understand that sunsetting regulations would return us to Base Case, but it seems obvious to me that if that happened we could simply work to make new regulations in a sensible manner.

Since the RIS then goes on to describe the predicted results of Base Case, I can only wonder why it wasn't highlighted that prior to any registration for homeschooling being required (which as I understand was only a decade ago) Victoria was actually in the circumstances of Base Case. If so, is there any evidence at all of the final paragraph's descriptions occurring prior to 2007? I think not.

Further in this paragraph, it says

a policy-based approach would not provide the same certainty or clarity, or the same level of scrutiny, as regulation can provide for both the regulator and the home-schooling community.The elements of certainty, clarity, and scrutiny – being the concerns of the government – seem to justify regulation, however without details in the regulations which offer these same elements to the satisfaction of home educators, it will put the VRQA in the position of themselves avoiding scrutiny, something to be avoided at all costs.

Additionally, this mentions another approach – policy-based registration – which is completely ignored and discounted when it is clearly admitted that it would be preferable to the homeschooling community. This situation could be discussed with proper consultation.

In summary, the section on Base case and its consequences seems too simple, and clearly the government has no intention of allowing us to return to a non-registration or non-regulated situation. Again, key points raised go unaddressed and key questions are in need of answers.

Identifying the problem

However, some homeschooled children may not receive a quality education, and Government does not have effective mechanisms to manage this risk.We recognise that this is a legitimate concern.However the rest of that paragraph is illogical. Requiring information from an applicant will not give any insight whatsoever into future instruction. I know this from my early teaching days when I was daunted by curriculum documents and a teaching planner, which didn't relate to anything I had done in my teacher training and constricted my idealism and enthusiasm and creativity to the point that I burned out before the end of my first year of teaching. It wasn't until I returned to work a year later that an experienced colleague suggested I write lesson plans that I felt I needed detail for (and soon found I didn't need as much detail as I found my feet) and then make records in the planner using curriculum documents after my day, or even my week, was finished. This achieved the required records and documented outcomes, but certainly did not happen before my year even started – which is what is being required of parents, how ridiculous.

...[in schools] the educational progress of students is monitored and reported. In

contrast, no equivalent settings exist for ensuring the quality of instruction and student outcomes from home schooling.I also find the idea of 'quality' which sounds so important to be irrelevant from a school perspective, teachers constantly find children are 'behind' and need to 'catch up' and this could be for many reasons, for example a poor experience in a previous grade or previous school or being from another country even. Standardisation and quality education do not always go hand in hand and may not be achievable or realistic goals in schools, why impose this upon home education? As a home educator who is a qualified teacher, I am simply pleased and satisfied when I see my children making progress. Sometimes it is slow, certainly not at grade level; sometimes it is in leaps and bounds, jumping grade levels within less than a year. Mostly it is sustained and often without my intervention. And I am pleased to report, it is learning which is retained long-term. (I am pleased to report here – I have no wish to be required to make a record of progress for review!)

The submission from the Commission for Children and Young People raised concerns...We recognise the legitimacy of concerns for vulnerable children.I haven't seen this submission (were they published as the February 28 submissions will be?) so I can't comment on how this was substantiated. I can comment on the fact that the RIS actually answers those concerns by pointing out mandatory reporting from professionals along with the complaints process. I would add to these answers by pointing out that birds of a feather flock together, meaning that unknown 'vulnerable' people are likely to be around other 'vulnerable' people known to a government department or agency; and that homeschoolers flock together and if there was any cause for concern within our communities I am sure these would be handled well and, if need be, the appropriate department or agency contacted.

This could be easily followed up by the registration process including ensuring parents are engaged with an appropriate support group or offered appropriate assistance in their home education journey.

In terms of educational attainment, a lack of information about home-schooled students creates the risk that some of them may be disadvantaged...There is ample information, such as the Alumni survey conducted by HEN, data collected in other states, patterns of tertiary enrolment (I often hear that overseas universities prefer home-educated students to mainstream and seek them out for top courses) and again I emphasise that this government's lack of information is their own fault for not researching it thoroughly, and certainly will not be improved by regulation.

The rest of that paragraph, discussing what consequences of being disadvantaged might be, is entirely guess-work. And I emphasise, children in mainstream schooling commonly face these issues. I would firstly like to point out that the government should perhaps be more concerned about their own education system causing these problems for thousands of students rather than assuming that we have a big problem in home education. And secondly, it should be obvious that no matter what kind of schooling children are involved in, some children just won't learn and we can't make them perform more highly than their own motivation and potential will allow them to.

How parents manage the process of learning is a key influence on their home-schooled child’s academic achievement and skill development.I find this statement reflects the educational theories that children are empty minds to be filled with knowledge from a higher source. This is only one way of theorising learning. Countless educators and pedagogues have illustrated over hundreds of years that the process of learning far exceeds the management of a teacher, or parent. I disagree with this statement entirely. Children often learn in

spite of their teachers, or parents. Far more important is the fact that children take ownership of their learning and when they are given freedom to do so, they do this well in excess of what management from a higher source, be it teacher or parent, will enable them to do. Many home educators often say “get out of the way and watch the children learn” and I find often that when I try to manage my children and their learning in a schoolish way (which obviously comes naturally to me as a former teacher!) that it actually impedes their learning. Certainly the micro-management suggested by the RIS and the regulations (again, we don't know because it's not clear) is unnecessary.

...anecdotal evidence suggests the majority of home schooling families have made the choice in the best interests of their child, and their children are achieving acceptable learning outcomesSo my suggestion is: rather than regulate to ascertain this, let's make this anecdotal evidence substantiated by both qualitative and quantitative data!

I have trouble after this point in following the train of thought of the section on Identifying the problem. It jumps from outcomes to motivations to resources to organisations and support... and makes many illogical connections such as

...the reasons for and approaches to home schooling are diverse. With this in mind, it is unlikely that all home schooling families have access to the resources that they need...Why would diversity make access to resources unlikely? In fact what does diversity in reasons or approaches have to do with resources? (Do we compare this to a school situation, where teachers are limited to the resources their school has or what they have highly limited time to find, yet they teach a much wider diversity of children in a single classroom usually with the same approach!)

This is just one of many illogical connections in this section of the RIS, but I will attempt to comment on some of the individual statements as they cause me alarm simply in their wording.

...it is unlikely that all home schooling families have access to the resources that they need, and not all will have adequately planned how to best provide regular and efficient instruction...Incorrect. It is not unlikely, in fact on the contrary, the diversity in the home education community mean that we are more likely to find families in similar circumstances to ours with children similar to ours who can make appropriate suggestions or lend or sell us resources we need! It will also be more unlikely under the draft regulations that they can adequately plan under pressure or without resources or assistance or guidance (and need I mention clear expectations again?) and I emphasise that parents will be likely to seek out what they need before beginning to homeschool (if they are planning ahead to homeschool) and if not soon after they begin to homeschool (if they suddenly withdraw from mainstream school) and this is soon enough.

Later paragraphs in this section of the RIS give details about all the support (such as the variety of sources and organisations, government assistance, testing, and so on) which we currently have which are adequate and if the government considers all of that inadequate then let's do something about the inadequacies outside of regulations!

Notably, other resources are available (including some that are free of charge) that families may use to support home schooling instruction.

I do not understand the point of Table 3.1 which precedes this comment, because Distance Education is not available to home educating families and most don't want it anyway! This statement seems to have a negative connotation, that other resources are not adequate or are of an unknown quality. I can assure you that many resources accessed by home educators are far superior to anything I have seen in a classroom context.

I also find the inclusion of this statement quite ironic considering the fact that the VRQA are very quick to tell parents who call to ask about home education that the “only approved curriculum” is the Victorian curriculum and that other curricula “are not approved” and that nothing that is approved is available for purchase (these are actual quotes from phone calls with VRQA staff!)

And why mention that they are free of charge – is the cost involved indicative of quality?

In Victoria, children registered for home schooling are eligible to partly enrol at their neighbourhood government school...This situation rarely happens – few schools are open to this for reason of the 'nuisance factor' to teachers and administration not to mention the uncertain funding. Partial enrolment seems even less likely under the draft regulations and certainly rates no mention (other this reference to the current situation) in either the RIS or the draft regulations. I believe it ought to be documented in the homeschooling regulations as some Principals are actually unaware that homeschooling parents have the right to request it.

Notwithstanding the support and assistance available, some home-schooled children may not receive quality instruction.Using a word like 'notwithstanding' implies that the authors believe the support and assistance available is extensive and most likely adequate... and yet they then make this totally unsubstantiated comment that some home-schooled children may not receive quality instruction. I have already pointed out that the quality of instruction is not always the determining factor in the success of a student, but this particular sentence could equally be used against mainstream education as follows: Notwithstanding the support and assistance (including masses of funding and resources and equipment and facilities in schools) some schooled children may not receive quality instruction!

This risk is increasing with the growth of the home-schooled cohort, because the absolute number of home-schooled children is increasing.Not only is this sentence repetitive, it also highlights again the need for homeschooling to be valued by the Department and for any changes to regulation to be made with the full involvement of the home educating community who know their needs best.

...there is little representative empirical evidence of outcomes for home-schooled students...Then get some. Without changing regulations. It is possible. And look outside of standardised testing because NAPLAN is useless, it has completely failed to improve outcomes in mainstream schooling. And interestingly to note, homeschool students who have sat the tests (and I question honestly why they would bother because general consensus agrees that it is not indicative of anything useful) have scored excellent results.

...small numbers of students sitting NAPLAN are unlikely to be representative of the broader home-schooled cohort.

Small numbers that sit them officially that is. NAPLAN resources and readiness tests are available everywhere, and many home educators use them to test their children, they're just not submitted. And many methods of home education provide other tests, different to NAPLAN. And many other methods of home education do not use standardised testing at all, for the reasons I already mentioned.

The limitations of these datasets mean the Department can draw no meaningful conclusions about the effectiveness of the current home schooling policy settings.The final paragraphs on p.26 clearly state limited data does not represent all homeschooled students but then, despite this, a conclusion is drawn and it is biased against homeschooling. We see this in the media and in all government descriptions of homeschooling. Wherever a student has failed in some way in life, the fact that they were homeschooled (even if only part of their schooling) is blamed. Conversely, wherever a student has succceeded, even if most of their schooling was from home and they only obtained a VCE through 2 years at school, school is praised and it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that they were homeschooled up until VCE. We have the same narrative told when describing shy students, if they're homeschooled then homeschooling is blamed for isolating them, but if they're schooled then it's just their personality. And we have the same problem with DECV saying that transition is a struggle... but what are the specifics of these cases they refer to? Are there perhaps mental health issues or physical disabilities or other factors involved? These are not meaningful conclusions. The bias is strong, and it is entirely wrong.

In summary, the current regulatory approach does not allow the regulator or the Department to ascertain the quality of home schooling in Victoria.Despite its de-railed train of thought and illogical carriage couplings, this section of the RIS does eventually return to a summary and a statement of the problem by p.27 but I would strongly question how will the draft regulations do any better at ascertaining the quality or the outcomes of homeschooling in Victoria? This has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

The VRQA has limited power to compel the provision of information and limited capacity to enquire about these matters.I fail to see how giving the VRQA unlimited power will do anything but threaten homeschoolers, and I would argue that in fact the VRQA's current power has not been used adequately, as I have pointed out elsewhere, and they have completely failed to engage in a positive way to have any kind of working relationship with the homeschooling community which would assist their capacity to enquire for the information they obviously need.

Increased regulatory oversight of home schooling would improve the VRQA’s ability to ensure quality in home school instruction...Of course, increased regulation would make the task of oversight easier for VRQA however it is a spurious notion that it is going to have any impact on quality. I emphasise that the draft regulations will open Pandora's box and cause problems and issues that will be completely outside of the VRQA's ability to manage to the satisfaction of the home schooling community. Increased regulation may be unavoidable, but it needs a complete overhaul.

In summary, the section on Identifying the problem doesn't identify any potential problems that couldn't be dealt with outside of the draft regulations. It also has no evidence of an actual problem, and so many home educators I have spoken to have quoted “If it isn't broken, don't fix it”. It was imperitive for the government to actually assess whether or not these problems actually exist before

regulating against them. And I strongly suggest that the low number of complaints and reviews can mean only two things: either the VRQA wasn't doing its job for the last decade, or there is an incredibly miniscule problem - and the majority do not need to suffer over-regulation to avoid this minority problem.

Specifying the objectives

Aside from the grating reference to quality – which is a matter of opinion – the definition of quality under the current regulations is adequate to both the government and to parents:

‘regular and efficient instruction’ that as a whole ‘substantially addresses’ the eight key learning areas and is provided in accordance with principles of Australian democracy.And the following statement:

The secondary objective is to ensure parents meet the requirements of home schooling registrationis also already adequately covered by the current regulations and I emphasise again that the draft regulations will not improve the reality, they might only improve the knowledge of the VRQA and I underline might because it will depend on the VRQA's interpretation of the many aspects of the draft regulations which are highly open to opinion and interpretation, a most dangerous situation to allow to go ahead.

The Department aims to ensure home-schooled children can easily transition to school, post-secondary or tertiary education, or the labour market, and are equipped with social and cognitive skills to be lifelong learners. These objectives, which ought to be numbered as the primary and secondary objectives were separate, are first of all not going to be improved by the draft regulations since there is nothing in the draft regulations relevant to these but second of all and most important of all are shared objectives of both the Department and the parents.

So we have just identified that all of the crucial objectives are shared (with the exception of the second which smacks of disrespect and distrust by the government towards the parents) and that being the case, we can see the need for extensive communication, consultation and collaboration between the Department and parents, which has not happened, and will not happen under the draft regulations.

In summary, the section on Specifying the objectives outlined excellent intentions but these could be achieved without the regulations changing, or minimal changes, or entirely different processes.

Identifying options

...regulating the registration requirements would remove ambiguity and arbitrariness about how to register for home schooling...Firstly, there is no ambiguity or arbitrariness about the current registration requirements. But amusingly, “ambiguity” and “arbitrariness” are two extremely appropriate words to describe what the draft regulations will cause!

Both the current and proposed regulatory regimes are the lightest among all states and territories

I completely disagree. Current regulations, yes. Victoria has had the lightest regulations to the point that people move here deliberately so that they can home educate without unnecessary intervention and imposition – I know families who have moved from interstate and even overseas! They are very familiar with the regulations in other states (and countries too) and they without exception believe that the draft regulations are by far going to be the worst in the country. Is this something the Department of Education wants, to be known as the worst?

Table 3.2 attempts to give comparisons between Australian homeschooling regulations but I find it inaccurate and incomplete. It is impossible to truly compare because the Education Acts would differ (making some aspects impossible in some where possible in others) and Departmental power and capacity (in terms of funding and staff for example) would differ, and the table even notes that some “do not have a charter of human rights”.

On that note, since Victoria does have a charter of human rights, why do the RIS and the draft regulations seem to flagrantly ignore the charter? I believe people with greater legal minds than mine are making submissions on this point, I won't double up on their superior efforts, but I would like an answer to my question since it is made pertinent by the mention of human rights charters in this table.

Also, the notes describe the shading of the table as indicating a level of prescription. But prescriptive is a very relative term, as different home educators will prefer certain aspects or find different aspects either helpful or invasive, supportive or prohibitive. I personally find some aspects of the NSW quite welcome yet many will disagree with me, and I also find a variety of aspects described in different states would be welcome but not others within the same state. A survey of home educators Australia wide might reveal more useful data than this table gives.

Another comment regarding incomplete information, it does not describe the people who do home visits, who in some states are reported as being very critical and negative but in others as highly understanding and supportive. This would also give huge differences in the characteristics of regulation.

Option 1

The approach fulfils the Act’s intention that students of compulsory school age must be either enrolled at school or registered for home schoolingI would therefore urge that Option 1 remains as the regulations, or at least with minimal changes since indeed it does fulfil the Act's intention of registration, no more and no less.

Option 2

Since Option 2 is the option the draft regulations are based upon, some of my comments here may be repetitious of my submission on the draft regulations, and others I have only addressed there and not here, for example the first paragraph describing Option 2 has some credible points but they have been tangled up and made dependent upon each other in the draft regulations and I have detailed these issues to a great extent in that submission. However, some comments are necessary here.

This option has no ongoing requirement to submit a learning plan, apart from with the initial applicationThis is a half truth in terms of changes for parents. There is no requirement to submit, however there is a requirement to create and maintain a learning plan (not a method all styles of home education require to be successful) because there is the potential of review and a learning plan will be required to be referred to by the reviewer.

An applicant for home schooling registration would need to consider the educational needs of their child, how they would provide regular and efficient instruction, and the resources and materials that they would use to support instruction.I fail to understand why this must be submitted prior to registration, especially when other states do not require it at that stage and certainly do not tie it to the success (or otherwise) of application.

The information in the learning plan would also allow the regulator and the Department to form a better understanding about the types of home school education occurring in Victoria.No it wouldn't. This intention has been stated elsewhere and I repeat, it will not inform anyone about the reality of home education, it will only give some indication of the intentions of parents, which is not representative of the homeschool community, considering the fact that the majority of new homeschoolers think that homeschool = school-at-home and therefore purchase school-like resources and will plan school-like from curriculum.

They could then target support and resources accordingly, better engage with home schooling families, and inform policy developmentIf they didn't do this under the current regulations, what in the draft regulations indicates that the Department will do so in the future? There is nothing promising support in the draft regulations.

...the regulator could request further information and arrange to conduct an interview with the parent...This word 'could' keeps coming up. They could... or they could not... or they could do more... this undefined and unlimited power which has translated over into the draft regulations is alarming.

The review sample each year would be selected using a combination of random and representative criteria..What is the representative criteria? Which people are going to fall under the microscope and why? This alarms the home education community, especially when the media are quick to pick on the stereotypical “religious” or “weird” or whatever other flavour of homeschooler they want to paint in a negative light. Given the way that the current government responds to unsubstantiated media reports by making draconian laws and regulations, this approach is most unwelcome.

I find the rest of the description of Option 2 questionable. How will review material identify low-quality instruction and learning outcomes? (I notice they are careful to say “the possibility of” it, as if being careful not to insult anyone... but I digress.) It is impossible to quantify this in a classroom with familiar educational methods and standardisation, and what if the 'further information' requested is unsatisfactory? This is relative to the opinion of whichever VRQA employee we are being assessed or reviewed by! There is an assurance that the provisions under Option 2 “would not be onerous” but they will become onerous if they are not to the VRQA's satisfaction (again, their opinion) and we have to spend time and effort performing to the VRQA's tune.

The proposed model would allow flexibility for a registered family to continue using any method they see fit to deliver instruction

We disagree. This sounds, like many statements in the RIS, quite benign. However a close reading of the draft regulations shows us that the lack of detail on criteria and the transfer of power away from parents along with the implied relativity and opinion of that authority will allow for an astonishing degree of inflexibility. We fully expect that homeschool registrations will decrease either from unsuccessful applicants or people not even bothering to apply, or from cancelled registrations who are deemed 'inappropriate' as homeschoolers.

I will add here that nobody in the homeschooling community wants documentation to be required. Many do already keep documentation, but they do so because it helps them, and suits their methodology. Some would actually prefer home visits with a supportive representative of an authority which of course we cannot have here in Victoria because it is against the Act. I would be one of those, I find documentation completely useless but taking photos and keeping samples of what my children produce is something I would willingly share with an assessor I trusted.

And interestingly, I heard that New Zealand adopted an approach similar to Option 2 but discontinued it after only a short time because they found it a waste of time and funding “amongst such a low risk group as homeschoolers” so I hope if the Victorian government does proceed with Option 2 that they will find it similarly wasteful and give it up soon afterwards.

Option 3

I am not even going to address Option 3 except to say that it is awful, that it seems like a threat to make us as home educators accept Option 2, and that even under this highly interventionist approach the withdrawal of children at risk of danger in school is catered for, something that the draft regulations do not provide.

I also wish to point out that it was my understanding of the guidelines for RIS that they were not to put forward or assess options that required a change to the Education Act, yet Option 3 which mentions home visits, are against the Education Act. This seems to me that it makes Option 3 impossible, and does this then make the entire RIS a null and void document?

In summary, the section on Identifying options has only identified some very narrow options, one of which is illegal, and I believe that the amount of work put into defining these options has been minimal. If for a moment we could consider Option 3's heavily interventionist approach from the point of view of the government workload, I would ask this: If NSW can afford to invest the time and money and people-power in home education to that degree, why can't Victoria invest in home education to the same degree but more wisely and in a better, more supportive, way? In fact when I look at the reality of home education regulation in other states I wonder why Victoria could not take all the positive aspects out of other states' regulations and implement them here after appropriate and extensive communication, consultation and collaboration with the home education community?

Assessing options

I disagree with the criteria and the weightings the Department gave them. So many more considerations, including a child's protection and safety, should have been included, and I doubt that the mainstream school system would stand up under the same scrutiny – especially with the description of “lifelong implications”. We have children exiting the school system illiterate and innumerate, scarred for life from bullying and labelling, and I don't want to mention but must because it is a reality, we have children committing suicide because of their experiences in school. I hardly think parents of those children would agree that quality of education is more important than a

parent's right to choose what is best for their child.

I also disagree that the third and fourth criterion are cost related – parents do not incur or save anything by a 'compliance burden' however we do incur a cost in loss of income by parents not working and staying home to educate children; and we save the government an immeasurable amount of money by funding our children's educations out of our own pocket. These criteria are insulting to our intelligence and to our bank accounts.

Criterion 1

...augmented requirements on parents may discourage some families from registering for home schooling (but they do not need to pay a registration fee).I cannot believe that the RIS admits the extra requirements may discourage registration – this is the exact opposite effect that regulations should have especially in light of the Education Act's intention of having regulation of some sort! Isn't this admitting the failure of the draft regulations before they've even been implemented?

And I do not understand why a registration fee is relevant to mention. I think some parents would rather pay a registration fee and not have augmented requirements.

Regulatory requirements may be difficult to meet and may incur costs...In one breath the RIS says the requirements are not onerous, and yet it says they will discourage some and others may find them difficult to meet, and they may incur costs. This doesn't make any sense at all. Instead the Department should be supporting parents in meeting requirements, offer assistance of make help available through Distance Education for example.

Criterion 2

assessment of parent capacity to deliver a quality educationHow is this fair when teachers can be qualified and yet not pass basic literacy or numeracy tests?

...induce greater parent effort and reduce the risk of suboptimal learning progress...Has the Department asked NSW parents how they find regulations such as Option 3? Incredibly onerous! And has the Department ascertained if “learning progress” is suboptimal in Victoria compared to NSW? If tight regulation makes a diffence to learning outcomes? No.

...develop an information set...We have read this elsewhere: there are better ways to gather data and information!

...better target support and resourcing towards families whose homeschooled children are at a greater risk of not receiving a high quality education. Timely interventions could thus be undertaken to support parents.I have said this elsewhere, VRQA don't do this now, what will be changed within VRQA to make this happen? Nothing is detailed in the regulations about interventions or support of any sort. And as for “timely” there would be nothing more timely than the support we get from our small group networks and our internet forums and social media homeschooling groups. Instant access to all the intervention we need, and want.

So much information in this section sounds so schoolish, and in fact some aspects such as the learning plan being reviewed don't even happen in schools. Teachers do not have their learning plans reviewed! They are a tool, no more, no less.

A parent may find they are no longer providing instruction in accordance with the learning plan. But, as long as they can demonstrate how the child’s learning needs or circumstances have changed, then they will not be penalised for adapting the instructional approach.Like other statements in the RIS, this sounds benign, however the wording of the draft regulations does not indicate the same level of understanding, we want statements like this defined clearly.

I find further statements about the learning plan being “a tool to prompt careful consideration” of what homeschooling will mean or other methods of education etc sound nice but are still tied to education outcomes which imply assessment under the scrutiny (and power) of the Authority.

Criterion 3

Option 1 would reduce the administrative burden on the VRQA, relative to the base case, because it prescribes a clear process for registration. Under the base case (in which the 2007 Regulations would sunset), the Act would continue to require registration and the VRQA would need to develop a process for registration. So, when registering for home schooling, parents may provide unnecessary or inadequate information that would require support to remedy, which would increase both administrative and compliance costs.Option 1 would change nothing in administrative burden on the VRQA. I don't know why it is necessary to point out that it would 'reduce' burden relative to a base case that doesn't exist and never will exist... I can see that it is pointed out that regulations sunsetting would increase work for VRQA but I have two questions. Firstly, isn't reading all these submissions a workload, and then considering them and redrafting and finalising regulations? And secondly, what administrative burden did VRQA have prior to 2007 in the circumstances of base case, what documentation or archived information is there about the administrative burden of VRQA back then?

I don't understand that NSW could conduct a Public Inquiry in 2016, that must have been a lot of administrative burden and so too would have been the Ministerial Working Party in Tasmania in 1991. Do Victorians deserve less effort?

having clearly established processes will save 15 minutes per applicationIt seems nonsensical that this is noting the need for clarity to save time, yet the complete lack of clarity in the draft regulations is going to waste so much time if applications submitted by parents are incomplete and require further information and further assessment.

I note differences in the FTE and the VPS estimates between Option 2 and 3, which I understand, but I don't understand why Option 2 is expected to require six months and Option 3 nine months. What schedule has the VRQA worked out? And how does this relate to the need for mid-cycle review, surely this will need to be kept up at least until then? I don't believe this work will be completed in a matter of six or nine months.

Criterion 4

I have already stated that the compliance burden on parents cannot be described in terms of a

monetary cost. Time does not equal money in our homeschooling world. If it did, you would be paying us to educate our children. This section is insulting. Any cost you calculate is going to be in addition to the loss of income by a parent needing to not work. And as for the assumptions, the suggestion that a learning plan will take 1.5 hours is unreasonable. South Australians regularly bemoan the fact that they spend entire weekends on theirs, as do Queenslanders and those in NSW. The only correct assumption here is that “some households will spend more time preparing learning plans”.

In summary, the section on Assessing options is as inadequate as the options themselves. It is full of inaccuracies, unfairness and insulting assumptions. So much more needs to be considered, and from more angles.

Preferred option and its effects

Maintaining the current ‘light touch’ approach is a viable alternative that provides a high level of parent choice and has low levels of administrative and compliance burden. But it provides less assurance of quality of education. Moving to an interventionist regulatory approach consistent with the practices in other states and territories is also a viable option because it would do the most to assure quality education. But it would reduce parent choice and have higher levels of administrative and compliance burden.I totally agree that maintaining the current approach is a viable alternative! Sadly the paragraph doesn't stop there, but goes on to describe a lose-lose situation. The RIS has also failed to substantiate that doing so “provides less assurance of quality education”. This paragraph proves that the Department will choose an attempt to “assure quality education” (which I have shown will fall short of its goal) over and above and at the cost of parents having choice and shouldering all the burden of administration and compliance.

We know this to be true because Table 3.5 gives Parent Choice a score of ZERO. It has no value. And unbelievably, the RIS then goes on to say

The Department prefers option 2, which would provide a better balance between children’s right to a quality education with the regulatory burden imposed on parents and the parent’s right to choose an appropriate education for their childwhich directly contradicts what we have just seen! How is this balanced?

Had stakeholders been invited to score these criterion, the results would have been totally different. These scores are skewed in favour of the Department!

augmented requirements for learning plans and annual reviewsThis is the first time I have seen mention of annual reviews. I assume this refers to the once-off learning plan and the one-time review a year later. Or does it refer to the annual round of reviews on long-term registrations? Or could it be used to later suggest that there be annual reviews for all home educators?

These measures would improve the quality assurance of home education by increasing the monitoring of instruction and student outcomes.The language has now changed, from quality to quality assurance. These measures were supposed to be improving the quality of education, now they are just improving the Departments assurance. They were supposed to be increasing the quality of instruction and the learning outcomes, now they

are just increasing the monitoring. This shows the true colours of the RIS and the draft regulations, they are not about quality, they are about control.

I will complete my comments about this preferred option by noting that the language then changes back to being about quality of instruction but continues to be relative to the opinion of what the Department considers appropriate. It plays down the change in 'preparation of the documentation' and says for approved families there won't be any further burden – however the potential for review at any random time will mean everyone now needs to prepare documentation. Already, before these draft regulations are implemented, current home educators in Victoria are looking into new apps and software for meeting this requirement. And again the need for 'gathering increased data' is given as justification for all this change when it does not need to be this way, the government could have employed researchers to do a thorough job because data gathered over a random sample will not be accurate enough.

I have addressed my concerns with the section on Changes from the 2007 Regulations in my submission on the Draft Regulations.

In summary, the section on Preferred option and its effects is heavily biased, confuses the intentions and most of all does not give a balanced assessment of the effects of the preferred option at all.

Implementation

they may be subject to a review and, if reviewed, will need to demonstrate evidence of student progressThe method of demonstrating evidence of student progress is not described in the RIS or in the draft regulations, I assume that the “transitional arrangements” will depend on guidelines not yet published and I wonder if home educators will be part of the writing of these guidelines?

These changes will be clearly communicated to both existing home schooling families and the publicIf it is possible for this to happen by 2018, why was it not done prior to 2017? Or in fact early in 2016? Why were we not notified by a simple email or a public advertisement (a page on a website is inadequate, nobody goes looking for that information unless they are already aware a change will be made) of the call for submissions on the current regulations or the publication of the draft?

With regard to the section on the Home school community, is the revised Guide to homeschooling in Victoria going to be made with the same lack of consultation as the current one? Is a factsheet actually going to be an opinion sheet? And again, if this level of communication is possible now, why wasn't it done earlier?

NO we demand communication, consultation and collaboration!

We do NOT accept dictation, ignorance and over-regulation!

With regard to the section on the VRQA, the impact of the homeschooling regulations will be considered only from their viewpoint and in their opinion. I question the VRQA's ability to establish a home schooling reform team – and wonder if it will include anyone who actually home educates or previously home educated or was home educated? And what about the documents to be developed, will these be welcoming input from home educators? And who will the assessors be?

In summary, the section in Implementation rings a great many alarm bells which the home

education community find utterly unacceptable.

Compliance strategy

The first paragraph completely shifts language from a benign rhetoric to a threatening powerful statement on compliance and consequences of failure. It then states

The new regulatory requirements may result in an increase in home schooling families who are not registered.It is unfathomable that a government would put out a RIS and resulting draft regulations containing an admission of their failure. And it then says that providing homeschoolers with information will minimise this possibility – I have already noted elsewhere that this is utterly illogical.

I would also like to point out that we don't want the information about new requirements and compliance guidance then, we want it detailed now and we want it detailed thoroughly in the regulations so that there is no opportunity for it to be changed on a whim at a later date by the VRQA, by the department, or because of ideological party politics.

I don't understand who the VRQA is answerable to in terms of “according procedural fairness” and aside from informing a parent of the substance of any material in assessing registration, what way of communicating that, what wording, what checks are there in place to assure us that this won't be a threatening and negative experience? I see that after registration is refused/ suspended/ cancelled then VCAT may be involved – but what happens under the draft regulations when a child is needing to be withdrawn from school for urgent reasons? How long will VCAT take to review a decision?

In summary, the section on Compliance strategy is not at all comforting to parents, and sounds like very heavy regulation, certainly not the “light touch” that Mr James Merlino is describing it as.

Evaluation

As this section repeats and summarises much of the previous sections, my comments would be similarly repetitive. Suffice to say that I have a few concerns:

• the list of additional processes for the VRQA to collect data does not include a method to collect data on unregistered, unprotected, vulnerable children

• the evaluation described in 2020 is entirely in the opinion of the VRQA

• the data gathering in surveys could have been done prior to 2017

• the data on post-school pathways has already been done by HEN.

Additionally, I question the use of surveys, who will construct them? What types of data gathering will they use? The reasons families choose to homeschool may not be listed on a 'tick the box' style questionnaire, nor would the list of approaches the RIS quotes be adequate. And I question the relevance of the highest educational attainment of parents, again it implies that an empty-mind student must be filled by a higher-source educator's bank of knowledge when we know that successful learning is a lifelong lifestyle and that anyone can participate in that journey.

In summary, the section on Evaluation is somewhat delayed or overdue, much of this could have been done before drafting regulations or preparing an RIS, it is a sad indictment on the Department that this was not done the other way around.

Consultation

The section on Consultation may have been more appropriate at the start of the RIS because it is all historical. And sadly it is historically inaccurate. Consultation was limited by the fact that most

people did not even know about it, and those who did had no idea what was going to be proposed!

....the flexibility of the current system is a strength because it considers the individual needs of the child and does not impose a burden on parents to complete paperwork or other documentation...Sad that this was not considered in the writing of the RIS or the forming of draft regulations, because they will weaken homeschooling not just in terms of the power and control being taken away from parents but in terms of the outcomes for learning for the children who are homeschooled under these regulations.

The proposed model would retain the flexibility of the current system, while introducing new requirements that allow quality assurance and a better understanding of how the sector operatesNo, the proposed model does not retain the flexibility of the current system – how can it, when parents can't withdraw a child, have to ask for approval to homeschool, and have to meet (undefined) criteria to continue? And the quality assurance and better understanding could have been achieved under the current regulations.

The submission from Distance Education Centre Victoria expressed concerns about the educational outcomes of homeschooled students, and noted some students experience difficulty when transitioning to a formal school settingI fail to see why anything DECV expresses could be relevant to the debate, but putting that aside, students experience difficulty when transitioning from school to school, from interstate, or from overseas – schools take this in their stride (well, usually, and they have to) so why should it matter if children have been homeschooled? Why can't they be given grace and support to adjust as if they are coming from another school or state or country?

I have addressed elsewhere the adequate protection afforded vulnerable children by others in the community such as medical professionals or neighbours. If the government wanted to extend their protection, invite home educators (especially those who are known to be leaders in the community) to become mandatory reporters. This paragraph contains one illogical statement about child safety:

The proposed model will increase the oversight available and allow the regulator to request information from a family at any time...How does sighting paperwork or 'school' work give any indication of a child's safety?

The Department has met three times with HEN members, who represent many home-school families in Victoria. HEN considers the current ‘light touch’ regime should be maintained.I am reliably informed that the Department meetings were initiated by HEN, that they were not meetings but rather three opportunities for HEN to speak or present, that HEN were given no indication whatsoever of what the Department was considering. HEN only represent some home educating families. And find it highly incomprehensible that after three meetings the only useful statement included in the RIS is that the current regime should remain.

I also find it ironic that HEN use the words 'light touch' to refer to the current regulations when Mr James Merlino and other Labor ministers have been quoted as referring to the new draft regulations

as 'light touch'. They clearly are not.

In summary, the section on Consultation indicates that the prior consultation period was totally inadequate and that the need for further targeted consultation is of the highest priority, beyond submissions like these.

This concludes my direct analysis and criticism of the RIS.

I would however like to add that upon sharing the Appendix 3.1 with friends who home educate in those states, they returned incredulous that their experience and their understanding of the regulations is inaccurate or misrepresented.

And finally, using the Appendix and comments from my interstate friends, I would like to highlight aspects of regulations in other states which I feel would be far more helpful and appropriate to both achieve the Victorian government's objectives and do so in a way that supports parents in providing an education to their children.

• NSW regulations have nothing that I like, however I am informed that since the Inquiry the government are planning a series of consultation opportunities across the state and invite home educators to attend. They even get catering. Perhaps Victoria could learn from this example of how to build trust within the commmunity?

• Queensland has an option of an educational programme or a learning philosophy (which will suit a wider variety of homeschooling approaches) and provisional registration (I believe they have no waiting period for withdrawing a child)

• Western Australia's monitoring is supportive, involves a lot of back and forth communication, with time (and therefore money in terms of paid staff) invested in the process and they have a Home Educaton Advisory Panel – I am unsure if those on the panel are themselves homeschoolers

• Tasmania has an excellent programme, with an independent body who support parents well and no stressful time constraints

• South Australia is more like NSW. I question if parents are always guaranteed to get the exemption from school, but either way, why can't Victoria at least include exemption without having to prove “reasonable cause”

• The ACT also has quite a good system and I'm told the APs are very supportive but some people find the reporting onerous

• Northern Territory is onerous – one imagines that this is due to the high percentage of indigenous people in the population which would require the government to maintain a much higher assessment and monitoring regime

To close my submission on the RIS, I am confused by the closing comment in the RIS which says “Following the consultation for this RIS, further targeted consultation may be required in early 2017.” To which consultation is the first use of the word referring? If it means the period prior to the draft regulations being released, this consultation was completely inadequate. If it means there was another period of consultation specifically prior to (or even after) the publication of the RIS, what did that include and how was that advertised and actioned? Because again, this was also completely inadequate. And finally, this comment clearly states a possible need for further

targeted consultation and I sincerely hope that this submission period which ends on February 28 is not the only opportunity we can hope for for us to provide our views and participate in consultation. Targeted consultation implies specific, detailed, time-consuming, collaborative, community consultation, not a brief glance at a pile of submissions and minimal changes. I look forward to being part of further targeted consultation, which I do not connsider a possible may be but a definite must happen. There needs to be an accurate statement on the impact to our children. Our every effort in forming regulation is deserved by all children in the Education State.

Thirdly, regarding the Draft Regulations, Part 6 – Homeschooling, pp.30-33.Comparison with 2007 Regulations

Within the RIS the section on Preferred option and its effects (RIS p.36) defines “several changes from the 2007 Regulations” but it is an inadequate assessment of the changes. I would like to highlight these discrepancies and also highlight the interlinking nature of individual changes which are major problems.

Discrepancies

The RIS points out

• a new learning plan required for new registrations

• a new review of current registrations

• changes to support these new requirements (e.g. VRQA timeframe)

• minor technical changes (adding child's full legal name; giving VRQA 28 days to assess applications; removing the list of learning areas)

It is strange that the third point gives as an example the VRQA's timeframe and then also lists this as a 'minor technical change' and gives the greater detail of this change as being 14 to 28 days. Why mention it twice? In the very same dot point, repetition of learning areas from the Act was deemed unnecessary in the Regulations, so why do we have here the repetition of the VRQA timeframe? And to return to the previous dot point, what other changes have been made to support these two new requirements? The former I have no answer because it's ridiculous, but the latter I do: there are only 3 divisions and a total of 9 individual regulations in the current regulations, the draft has 4 divisions and a total of 14 individual regulations. They are major changes! Why were these not given as examples in the RIS? Was this an attempt to avoid scrutiny? Was it to make the regulations seem benign? The responses from all Labor politicians seem to quote this exact section, as if this is the only section they've had the opportunity to read and they are unaware of the drastic changes. Unaware or uncaring, certainly careless I think.

There are alarming new aspects to the regulations. The former regulations refer to a child consistently, the new regulations more often refer to a student, even adding a new definition under the first Note on p.30. At what point did it become necessary to change the way we refer to our children? Clearly regulations relating to schooling or homeschooling refer to children who are studying. I think this dehumanises the regulations. Let us never forget that we are referring to individual children who are known and loved by their parents, and not nameless numbers of students in impersonal school environments. The biggest new aspect is the enormous transfer of power from these parents who know the needs of their children better than anyone else to a government body which cannot possibly know every individual need of every child in any educational setting, either home or school. This will have huge changes to the safety and protection of these children which I have detailed elsewhere.

There are also confusing new aspects to the regulations. The mention of exemptions from receiving instruction in a learning area I cannot fathom, on two levels. Firstly I have never in my teaching career come across a child even with the most severe special needs who cannot engage somehow with all learning areas. Secondly whatever that reason may be, it is inappropriate that the Authority have the power to grant, or not grant, exemption when a parent has considered their child's needs and found it necessary to make an application for exemption. This seems a token gesture to soften changes by offering a clause for parents to think there's an element of reason in these unreasonable regulations. I am also constantly baffled by the statements that are clearly a matter of opinion and interpretation, that are without exception in the VRQA's power to assess and decide such as “whether it is appropriate” or “the Authority is satisfied” or “in the Authority's opinion”

I wish to return to the mention of the VRQA timeframe, it is entirely inaccurate to say that the VRQA will now be given 28 days instead of 14 days to assess an application, they never had 14 days to assess an application, they had 14 days to notify parents. This is where Minister James Merlino and other Labor ministers have taken their inaccurate and inoccuous comment about “a simple extension of time” from. This interlinking of a small change in timeframe with a huge change in rights and responsbilities is an example of the interlinking nature of these regulations causing major problems for the wellbeing of children, which I wish to address next.

Interlinking regulations causing major problems

If the process of registration did not link the timeframe and the learning plan and the permission and the withdrawal the regulations may have had a chance of being accepted by the homeschooling community. (I hasten to emphasise may have had a chance because I think most home educators have problems with each of these aspects individually and I intend to detail my own concerns later.) But allow me to point out how these regulations being knit together is an incredible mistake.

A timeframe which considered only the new responsibility of the VRQA alone is inappropriate to start with because it doesn't consider the individual circumstances a child or a family may find themselves in, the only benefit is to the VRQA; and it is unnecessary altogether if it is divorced from the other aspects or thought through in a different manner.

A learning plan to be delivered upon application (never mind with the lack of details and support) is also inappropriate for many reasons but most notably that parents might think they'll homeschool a certain way initially but most often find it doesn't work and need to change soon after commencing. Expecting it before they commence is unrealistic and at minimum will fail to inform the Department about the reality of home education in its ongoing amorphous manner.

A transfer of power from the parents notifying the VRQA to the permission being granted by the VRQA is also of immense concern and on its own is reason enough for these regulations to be completely rejected.

And lastly the threat of truancy fines and the requirement to remain at school before withdrawal is hugely intimidating and potentially detrimental.

But putting even these four regulations together, making them depend on one another and in the order they are prescribed to happen, is dangerous. Other states have similar individual regulations but they have added safety measures in place or keep them separate from other regulations! Parents are allowed to withdraw from school immediately under a provisional registration; Parents have support parents in their right to homeschool when and how they see fit; Parents prepare learning plans with assistance and are provided ongoing connection and support through their homeschool journey; and, most of all, these are allowed to happen without stressful time constraints but rather over periods of appropriate time.

These points lead me to the conclusion that these regulations are so poorly considered and the effects so inadequately assessed that surely the draft needs to be thoroughly rewritten if not completely rejected?

A further concern of omission

I could not find information in the draft regulations regarding partial enrolment. This is of particular concern to me as this was our experience, our entry, to the world of homeschooling. In my son's prep year his school principal actually suggested, due to his teacher's extra workload of co-ordinating the school centenary requiring her absence and a string of emergency teachers which my son found extremely unsettling, that we part time homeschool. He doesn't have a diagnosis and wouldn't qualify for funding but his Aspergers-like challenges were problematic. Since I was a qualified teacher and there were other families in the school who did partial enrolment for other reasons, she felt it would work well for us. This suited his needs at the time, and was part of the reason we came to homeschooling. I find no provision for this in the draft regulations.

Specific concerns with 2017 Draft Regulations

72 (1) A parent - what if one parent applies or is registered, is rejected or cancelled, can the other parent apply?

72 (2) (a) This only suits families planning ahead long-term

72 (2) (b) This only suits families changing choice for a non-urgent reason

Particularly this regulation assumes school is a safe place.72 does not suit families who have children with poor experiences of school such as lack of attention to learning needs (either gifted or remedial), bullying or abuse (urgent withdrawal must be allowed for without approval from Principal or health care professional) or a sudden change in family circumstances (moving, loss of income, travel opportunities)

72 (3) (a) “in the form” is nebulous, is it an application form or registration form? Is this a guideline which can be changed arbitrarily

72 (3) (c) “educational program” but a learning plan is not helpful or relevant to all method of home education, parents can't always predict when and were instruction takes place, or the subjects that children will develop interest in, or what materials and resources they will access, and they have no understanding of learning outcomes in the way the VRQA would be expecting

Particularly in the case of school-based trauma, a family do not need to be working on this while helping their child to recover from trauma, or to continue having to deal with trauma by staying in school.73 (1) there is no time specified – how long could this extend beyond the 28 days? Or is this all supposed to occur within the 28 days? 74 (2) (d) seems to indicate it is within 28 days but it is unclear and it adds stress in terms of rushing to meet deadlines

Particularly the use of the word 'appropriate' is a matter of opinion73 (2) new power allocated to the authority to refuse parents removing their child

Particularly this is a breach of Human Rights Charter74 (2) (c) power to approve or deny exemption given to Authority

74 (2) (d) this has been mis-reported as being equivalent to the current regulations 66 (2) (c) except for the number of days

Particularly this is a major transfer of power from parents informing the Authority and expecting registration within 14 days to now parents applying to Authority with risk of rejection within 28 days76 (2) application for exemption doesn't detail what (this detail is given in the following regulation)

76 (3) exemption here is defined as a learning area

Particularly I cannot imagine any child no matter what their situation needing to be exempted from an entire key learning area – if not, is it a part of a learning area such as a skill that a disability may require exemption, if so are learning plans to detail all outcomes within a learning area? This is confusing eduspeak for parents to grapple with.76 (4) open to opinion / interpretation and how do the VRQA assess a child's needs better than a parent?

Particularly the confusion and lack of clarity in regulation 76 gives rise to concern that VRQA are going to change guidelines to enforce more than the overall Victorian curriculum but specific curriculum resources for specific subjects or even micro-manage details such as ideological programmes such as Safe Schools or Respectful Relationships.77 equivalent to regulation 69 in current regulations which is reasonable in terms of address but in

terms of learning plan?

Particularly unclear, is VRQA expecting weekly changes to learning plan as teachers would do adjusting according to children's needs?79 there is a typographical error “...provide information to the Authority to allow the Authority to assess...”; appropriate for a child to continue is a matter of opinion

Particularly concerning is the possibility for the guidelines and expectations of the VRQA to change, for the worse, over time and so what was acceptable and approved one year may incrementally get more difficult because there are no limits within the regulations specifically guarding against this.82 (1) If the Authority decided, what will be their basis for deciding to review? A random sample? A report/complaint?

Particularly the RIS cites representative reasons, what does this mean? Will Montessori home educators be targeted? Radical unschoolers? Christians? Muslims?82 (2) What can the scope be? What timelines could be involved? What processes?

Particularly the unlimited and undefined nature of this could provide opportunity for inappropriate pressure and threatening fear-based reviews.83 (2) (b) satisfied – relative to what? Under what opinion or interpretation of regulations?

83 (2) (c) action – what are they allowed to do? Is there any grace e.g. in the case of trauma?

85 cancellation of registration is another example of transfer of power

Particularly will this happen at the same time as 83 (c) making it truancy to stay out of school and making parents commence application process from scratch? Or will there be time for parents to appeal to VCAT after 83 (c)? Unclear what is likely to happen.

Overall comments on the Draft Regulations

These draft regulations would not have suited or enabled our journey with homeschooling. My son was the reason we began homeschooling. After 3 years of struggling with not fitting with the system (through two years of funded kindergarten/preschool and his first year of school in Prep/foundation) and being told that we must get diagnoses and funding, it was suggested by our Principal that since I was a former teacher and his immediate struggles with an unsettled school environment (due to school changes and celebrations taking precedence over anything else) would suit partial enrolment, we should get registration. It was immediate, no fuss, and when a month later we decided to remove him from school (after further issues and concerns arose) again it was no fuss. When ill health has impacted our family, we have adjusted our expectations and our routine. Homeschooling has benefited both of my children, and the dynamic within our family life, immensely. It has given us flexibility to meet the needs of both children (who are chalk and cheese), to travel widely and experience a variety of home schooling methods and find what works best. It has also enabled us to cope with circumstances outside of our control (a sudden house disaster followed by 3 months of living in temporary accommodation, followed by a move elsewhere in Victoria) and to trial returning to the school system again, and leave again without fuss of application and assessment when we decided to continue with full time home based education.

I am greatly concerned that the power, which has been given to the VRQA and taken from parents, is unlimited and undefined. I am concerned that children will be in dangerous situations in schools unable to be withdrawn lest Principals be sued when admitting there is a problem with bullying or violence or abuse or because independent health care professionals are inaccessible in urgent cases. I am concerned that regulations are not only individually changed but that they are made dependent upon one another for the protocols of registration to be followed, causing stress to children and

parents. I am concerned at the lack of definition of learning plan, and the lack of support and help in preparing it, and the unclear criteria for assessment of it. I am concerned who in the VRQA is going to be handling enquiries and applications and reviews as their record of negativity towards home educators is appalling.

I desire to see home education growing in Victoria, supported by reasonable regulations which balance the legitimate concerns of the government and the wider community with the genuine concerns of parents and children who home educate.

To finish my submission, I would like to quote from the current information on Homeschooling from the Department of Education website.When you decide to educate your child from a home base, you assume overall responsibility for the planning, implementation and assessment of your child’s education.

Indeed, when PARENTS decide to educate THEIR child from a home base, THEY assume overall responsibility for the planning, implementation and assessment of their CHILD's education.

This statement contains strong emphasis on the ownership of power and in fact the ownership of the education. It is the child's education and it is the most empowering kind of education when it is owned by the child, directed by the child's interests, informed by the child's needs, and assessed in ways that the child can excel. Parents are the best to hold this responsibility, not governments, not departments, and not authorities.The Victorian government recognises that home schooling can occur across a broad range of styles, from informal learning approaches to formal curriculum programs, and as such, does not mandate curriculum or reading materials for families who have chosen to home school.

I find no such statement in the regulations, and no regulations to protect such a statement from being changed. Instead I find the lack of detail and transfer of power so glaringly obvious in the draft regulations shows that this particular Victorian government, the Daniel Andrews / James Merlino Labor Government, do not recognise the rights and responsibilities of parents for the children of Victoria.

I firmly hope the response to my submission (and the submissions of my fellow Victorian citizens, fellow teachers, fellow homeschoolers and fellow parents) is to completely start over the regulation process from scratch, with a well communicated long-term approach which allows for extensive consultation and collaboration, resulting in regulations which will meet not only the needs of Victorian children and their parents who choose to homeschool, but also the concerns of the government and the wider community. This will “reflect the reality of contemporary education”, “meet the community's expectation for education”, and “underpin quality education delivery in Victoria, both now and well into the future” (statements from the Department of Education website) if it is focussing on the fundamental principles of the child's right to learn. This, and not a government's or an authority's power, we understand to be the overarching intention of regulation as found in the Education Act.