Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page
Search the Web

Report of the Meeting at the OBoS- 26.10.'98 by Toni Stevens

Rob Randall (Chief Curriculum Officer)- Chair, Mr John Ward (Gen. Manager of the Office of the Board), Rosemary Hafner (Inspector for Schools, Science and Technology), Paul Hewitt (Inspector for Schools, Health and PD).

Georgina Brazier, John Clements, Ann Gippel, Alan Hardy, Bev Hartingdon, Erica Hawron, Louise Oliver, Peter Reefman, Toni Stevens, Phil & Colleen Strange, Marj Taberner, Martin Visser.

In the introduction, Rob Randall commented that:

1. The role of the OBoS is to administer home schooling

2. Home schoolers present were regarded by the OBoS as experienced home schoolers with personal contact and communication with a large number of other home schoolers.

3. Procedural, notes and minutes are generated by the meetings and the OBoS sees no need to tape them.

4. The meetings were not formal so far- no motions passed or seconded (Toni Stevens thought this should be the case so that assent/agreement could be recorded- at the moment only dissent to what you say is recorded which implies that pple didn't agree with you!!)
5. The meeting would be taped, minutes written up, 3 HS'rs volunteered (Toni,Bev, Peter) to be verifiers of the minutes before minutes distributed to all HS'rs. This verification not saying that they are true and accurate i.e. will not be fully adopted/ amended until the next meeting. It will be noted that they are not final minutes but purely to inform HS'rs of what the OBoS wishes to discuss and comments they make on our concerns so other HS'rs can put in their tuppence worth. Most of those present thought this was a win!! I would have thought that it would be more pertinent that home educators communicated with home educators. Any communication with the OBoS is kept confidential to the point that the OBoS can say whatever they like and then say Home educators wrote to them: whether it was on the same issue is irrelevant because there are no checks and balances.

6. Rob Randall proposed that the minutes note what issues were raised at the meeting. I deduce this is to prove we have been consulted. Such a note could be like the letter written by Maureen Richardson and Colleen Strange disputing points in the minutes of the previous meeting. He suggested they be attached to the previous minutes and filed so it can be seen as an amendment. He moved any discussion of this to later in the meeting (I don't recall actually discussing them at all)

7. No apology was given by any officer from the OBoS for the out right deceit of not informing us of the construction of Regulations which they admitted they had been working on since April this year!! John Ward made a brief statement- that the meeting was a fairly free ranging discussion. He stated that they had advice that since the regulations didn't change the guidelines then it was just an administrative change and therefore there was no need for consultation. Parliament disagreed with that advice. However they still have the guidelines operating. There is no need to rush the consultative process as can't have new regulations before next April.

8. It was asked where the legal adviser was that they had said would be present at this meeting- they replied that there was no such undertaking!! Don't they read their own minutes??

9. It was requested that since the regulations were disallowed that no more certificates should be issued with conditions on them that are based on those regulations. However, the OBoS was not prepared to negotiate. All future certificates of registration will have conditions on them.Rob Randall. I think this point should be pursued with the Minister and parliament. He should be censured for this behaviour. This flagrant flaunting of the Parliament of NSW, the Regulation Review Committee and the Act and should not be allowed to continue

Rob Randall said he would inform the Minister of our feelings on this matter.

10. There was no guarantee of a general mail out (even with the minutes) to inform all home schoolers of the events of the recent past and ask them if they wish to support a consultative network that is run by home schoolers that are nominated and elected by home schoolers. Many of the home schoolers were prepared to be conciliatory in order to induce the OBoS to do such a mail out. We should be prepared to generate our own mailing list and contact network by advertising our presence at the grass roots level. May be even a state conference would be in order. We should not be acting as if we are dependent on the OBoS.

11. The OBoS will not give an undertaking to inform us about any developments on Regulations for the future as that won't be until next April at the earliest!!!

Rob Randall said that the Reg. Review Committee required consultation before a regulation could be allowed. The OBoS (one assumes this is the Minister) also wanted extensive communication with other pertinent groups and HS'rs would be one of the many groups consulted. What other groups are pertinent to discussions on regulations for home education?? I think this calls for more letters insisting on due process.

A date in early Dec. is to be set for the NEXT MEETING. Dear me! What a rush to add more claytons consultations to their list of "extensive consultation with home schoolers on relevant issues". Even the RRC pinned them down about that claim, asking them if the actually discussed regulations or not, and why not when they had been planning them since April this year?

12. The OBoS stated that there are some "unreasonable" home schoolers who were only looking at parts of the Act not at the Act as a whole- (they are not getting the gestalt) Therefore, they are misinterpreting the Act or rather presenting a very skewed opinion. Toni S. said that may be we should be going to the courts to get a reasonable opinion!!

13. The OBoS would not respond to a query on what is the mechanism for how other home educators could be invited to these meetings. (7 /12 HUIN pple at the meeting when they have a membership of 60-70 !! Unbelievable!)

14. The Regulation was on the original agenda and was commented on by Rob Randall once(?) and John Ward twice , so it could be construed that consultation was occurring if you didn't look too closely at the minutes. We felt that we were just as representative as any other group and this was getting us nowhere. Rosemary Hafner stated that this group is valuable as individual view points can still be heard. But then again we haven't seen the minutes produced by the OBoS as yet.

15. Some of us present understood Rob Randall to say "No we are not revising the guidelines". He stated that he thought the requirements are valid and enforceable. It was argued that since the original guidelines were developed before there were "graduates" from home education that they were based on a "process" model without allowing for and "outcomes" model.

16. A working party on Communications (developing a philosophically neutral letter to go in a possible mail out by the OBoS) Then they can say they did something for us!!

SEVEN people volunteered, Georgina, Anne G., Louise, John C., Philip, Bev, and Erica.

They will meet at the OBoS in two weeks- date to be announced.

As you can probably tell, I am not very happy with this meeting. If they have had authority delegated to them by the Minister (i.e. he can delegate his function in home schooling but his function is to register/not to register children) why can't the OBoS make any decisions regarding home schooling? Why do they always have to go to the Minister for his decision? I think we are attempting to negotiate with an unwilling, uncooperative, unauthoritative party. This will have to be changed.