REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOME SCHOOLING INQUIRY INTO HOME SCHOOLING ——— CORRECTED PROOF At Sydney on 5 September 2014** ——— The Committee met at 9.15 a.m. ——— PRESENT The Hon. P. Green (Chair) Dr J. Kaye (Deputy Chair) The Hon. D Clarke The Hon. C. Cusack The Hon. T Khan The Hon. A. Searle The Hon. H. Westwood CORRECTED PROOF Home schooling 1 FRIDAY 5 SEPTEMBER 2014 CORRECTED PROOF CHAIR: Good morning and welcome to the first hearing of the Select Committee into Home Schooling. The inquiry is reviewing the home schooling practices and comparing the practice with other jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand. Before I commence, I would like to acknowledge the Gadigal people, who are the traditional custodians of this land. I would also pay my respects to the elders past and present of the Eora nation and extend that respect to all other Aboriginals. The hearing today is the first of two hearings we plan to hold for this inquiry. Today we will hear from the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards NSW, the Department of Education and Communities, the Australian Home Education Service, home schooling parents, the Home Education Support and Action Network, the Sydney Home Education Network and the New South Wales Teachers Federation. Before we commence I would like to make some brief comments about the procedures today. In terms of broadcasting, in accordance with the broadcasting guidelines, while members of the media may film or record committee members and witnesses, people in the gallery should not be the primary focus of any filming or photography. I would also remind the media representatives that you must take responsibility for what you publish about the Committee's proceedings. It is important to remember that parliamentary privilege does not apply to what witnesses may say outside of their evidence at the hearing, so I urge witnesses to be careful about any comments you may make to the media or to others after you complete your evidence as such comments will not be protected by parliamentary privilege if another person decided to take an action for defamation. The guidelines for the broadcast proceedings are available from the secretariat. In terms of questions on notice, there may be some questions that a witness could answer only if they had more time with certain documents to hand. In these circumstances, witnesses are advised that they can take a question on notice and provide an answer within 21 days. In terms of delivery of messages to be tendered to the Committee, witnesses are advised that any messages should be delivered to the Committee members through the Committee staff, who are seated on my right and around the room. Finally, could everyone please turn their mobiles to silent. Home schooling 2 FRIDAY 5 SEPTEMBER 2014 CORRECTED PROOF ANNE KEENAN, Director, Registration and Accreditation Standards, Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards NSW, and DAVID MURPHY, Executive Director, Regulation and Governance, Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards NSW, sworn and examined: CHAIR: I welcome our first witnesses from the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards NSW. Would either of you like to make a brief opening statement? Mr MURPHY: No. Ms KEENAN: No. CHAIR: Dr Kaye will start questions. Dr JOHN KAYE: Thank you, Ms Keenan and Mr Murphy, for your detailed and accurate submission. There have been changes to the information package and changes to the registration package that date to 2013. Can you very briefly explain what those changes were and can you describe to us the consultation that you held with the home schooling communities? Mr MURPHY: The information package is regularly reviewed. The most recent review that was undertaken was in 2013. The chief factors that influenced that review were the revised Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards K-10 syllabuses in English, maths, science and history. The second factor related to some feedback that the board had been receiving over a period of time that there needed to be greater clarity around some of the provisions. A lot of that feedback was coming from home schoolers or authorised persons. The third significant factor related to some suggestions that were made to the board by the Ombudsman. Those suggestions chiefly related to some procedures that the board had been applying for many years that were not as open and transparent as they needed to be. They tended to be internal documents, and the Ombudsman suggested that many of those processes would be better placed within the information package. The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Regarding the final point that you have raised, do I understand that those suggestions made by the Ombudsman were contained in the Ombudsman's annual report 2012-13? Mr MURPHY: Yes, they were. The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Do I also understand that that annual report followed on what could be called "The investigation into the death of Ebony"? Is there a connection? Mr MURPHY: No, that particular investigation related to an investigation that the Child Death Unit of the Ombudsman's office conducted, but it was not into the Ebony case. That particular case, as far as I understand, is still subject to ongoing legal proceedings, so I cannot comment on the case. The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: That is why I was trying to connect it in some way. Mr MURPHY: Indeed. When that type of thing happens, we get inquiries from the Child Death Unit of the Ombudsman's office. Say the child is referred to as K—I cannot name the child—in the case of K, those inquiries were concluded and there was no further action that the board was required to take. However, during the course of those inquiries, the Ombudsman became more acquainted with the administration of home schooling and decided to conduct a preliminary investigation into the administration of home schooling. The recommendations or suggestions that emerged came from that preliminary investigation. As the Ombudsman has pointed out in his report, the board's response met the Ombudsman's requirements. The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: You are obviously agreeing to a number of changes that are contained. How have you gone about implementing—I think there were five recommendations that the Ombudsman made, is that correct? Mr MURPHY: We did provide an extract from the Ombudsman's report on page 25 of the Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards [BOSTES] submission. Home schooling 3 FRIDAY 5 SEPTEMBER 2014 CORRECTED PROOF The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: Yes, that is it. Mr MURPHY: Would the Committee like me to go through each of those? CHAIR: Yes. Mr MURPHY: The first point is that regular monitoring has always been a feature of the board's administration of home schooling but what the Ombudsman observed was that it was not as explicitly stated in the information package as it should be and so up to that point we had an internal document called the "Authorised Persons Handbook", which contained those kinds of procedures and what the Ombudsman suggested was that we should make explicit reference to that procedure within the information package and we have done that. The second point relates to capturing data related to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders and that required a change to the application form for home schooling and that was also implemented. The third point relates to the exchange of information with the Department of Education and Communities when certain circumstances arise where a family may choose to withdraw their child from a government school and related to any particular issues of dissatisfaction with the schooling that is occurring in the government school. CHAIR: On that point we are going to have a bit of dialogue, if that is okay, with the way it works on this occasion. Mr MURPHY: Yes, sure. CHAIR: Have you had any success in how to better identify and resolve dissatisfaction with schools? Are you saying that people are not withdrawing their kids from school because you have a better system? Mr MURPHY: I do not think the Ombudsman believed that the onus was on the board to make whatever improvements where required. I think the Ombudsman's view was that the department needed to be better informed when circumstances like that arose. Dr JOHN KAYE: So this is just purely you notifying the department— Mr MURPHY: Yes, indeed. Dr JOHN KAYE: —that you found a bunch of parents from a particular school who have withdrawn because of a particular concern about that school? Mr MURPHY: Yes, indeed, so where it was relevant that information was provided across to the department. I would have to say the chief caveat I put around that is that for the most part the families concerned would need to consent to that information being provided in that it does disclose personal affairs, so we do take the precaution of seeking consent before. Dr JOHN KAYE: And do you usually get it? Mr MURPHY: I would not say usually. That kind of experience when it does for example involve allegations of bullying, it is usually a set of circumstances where the family wishes to move on from that. The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK: Can I just come back to Mr Khan's question because he was just explaining it in the context of the Ombudsman? Is that okay, just to finish the answer? CHAIR: We are approaching bridges that many of us want to cross with the answer; that is all. Rather than come back, I think we should cross them and just keep moving forward in terms of the outcomes, unless Mr Khan has any objection.