A Political Victory for Poorly Performing ECE Centres, Everywhere in NZ

A victory for poorly performing ECE centres

This is a story of an early childhood centre breaching 17 regulation requirements – Country Kindy, Minister Seymour, the Early Childhood Council (ECC), and what happened next.  

Dr Sarah Alexander. 
16 March 2025. 
Opinion article  

The centre, Country Kindy in the Manawatu is a privately owned full-day centre for over-2s.  The owner is also the head teacher.

Enrolments were down to 22 children[1], on a licence for 40 children.  It previously had a licence maximum of 58 child places.  Staff turnover was high and the owner couldn’t retain qualified teachers. It had been placed on a provisional licence for 17 breaches in education regulations (see the list in Appendix 1).

Associate Education Minister David Seymour publicly spoke about the case. He used it as an example to justify why it was important for the government to slash “red-tape” including requirements for minimum teaching and care practices and standards.

Country Kindy therefore made national news headlines.  It made headlines for all the right reasons, or depending on your view it made headlines for all the wrong reasons.    

A notice of intention to cancel the licence of Country Kindy was sent by the Ministry of Education on 29 April 2024 to its owner due to seven (7) conditions that had not been met on the provisional licence (see Appendix 2). The owner was given until Monday 27 May 2024 (a full month) to respond and say why the licence should not be cancelled. 

The Early Childhood Council (ECC) was asked by the owner to represent it. The ECC’s Simon Laube left it to the eleventh hour to send a written response to the ministry on the 27^th May.  

Laube wrote that the ministry had no power to enforce the regulatory requirements. (He’s incorrect on this).  And added that “if the service provider asserts they are operating within the regulatory framework” then they are. 

Laube told the ministry it had no valid reason to close the centre as it “is clearly compliant and has always been fully compliant”[2] and he knew this because the “ECC cannot discern any material non-compliance practices or policies with Country Kindy’s operation of its centre.” But Laube did not provide evidence that it was fully compliant.    

Laube’s written representation[3] was weak and contained factual errors.  As the ministry noted there was “nothing contained in the additional information that would warrant a change to the preliminary decision to cancel the licence.”[4]  (See Appendix 3 to read the ministry’s reply).

The owner made no further representation.  Therefore, on 24 June 2024 the ministry informed the service owner that as compliance with seven of the conditions in the provisional licence dated 18 Sept 2023 had not been complied with and as compliance is still required, Country Kindy’s licence would be withdrawn, with the cancellation to take effect from 5pm on 8 July 2024[5].

But before that could happen, on 6 July 2024 Minister David Seymour approached the media concerning the ministry’s intention to cancel Country Kindy’s licence. He said, “I am very concerned by this action” and that he was going to meet with ministry officials and “ask them to explain.”[6]  

On 9 July 2024 Seymour issued a press release[7] from Parliament announcing that Country Kindy would remain open as the decision to cancel the licence was on hold for 12 weeks. 

On 10 July Seymour told NewstalkZB[8] listeners that compliance issues only related to the curriculum (implying that curriculum and children’s leaning is not important). He’s incorrect on this – the ministry had identified that seven (7) of the 17 conditions of the provisional licence had not been met, these related to curriculum, governance and management and Regulation 47.  (You can find the ministry’s assessment of Country Kindy on each of these compliance issues in Appendix 2 of this article below.)

Seymour also told NewstalkZB that children weren’t in any danger. He confirmed that one of the practices at Country Kindy was requiring that children (2 – 5 yrs) had to ask for permission when they needed to go to the toilet, and indicated his support of this restriction – it was something he had to do as a kid at school and he said he “turned out just fine”. 

There’s lots more about Country Kindy and what happened below. And, here’s two more articles that may interest you:

• Why was there a substantial decline in the number of ECE services that the Ministry took licensing action against in 2024?
• How hard is it to close a bad centre? The Ministry of Education received complaints from parents and teachers about an owner-operated childcare centre, Pitter Patter Centre in Feilding. Complaints included locking children in sleep rooms as punishment, medicating children without parents’ permission, dirty bedding, children at risk of being burnt from very hot water coming from taps, bad food, poor ventilation, and the owner was violent to children. But the Early Childhood Council (ECC) supported the owner and argued against licence cancellation.

Complaints against Country Kindy

The ministry had received a raft of complaints from teachers and parents against Country Kindy concerning:

• the safety and treatment of children, staff, parents, and animals at the centre;
• not meeting regulated staffing requirements;
• tight control over children and restriction of freedom;
• parents’ complaints to the owner not being addressed, and
• the curriculum not being appropriately taught.

Serious incident

There was a serious incident sometime in or around June 2022 (confirmation of date or what had gone on, and if it had been going on for a while has not been provided). The ministry has refused to say what the nature of the incident was.  The Ministry said that it was because of what the nature of the incident was, and to protect the privacy of the child, their family and the staff involved, that it would not say what the nature of the incident was. Country Kindy’s owner has not made a public statement regarding the incident.

SELO

SELO Report Aug 2022
From the (owner’s) point of view the MoE Trauma team gave (her) the impression that she should sort it out herself.

From July 2022 until later in the year, a SELO professional development facilitator was working with the centre. In total, more than $40,000 of taxpayer money was spent supporting the owner of Country Kindy with professional development support contracts between June 2022 and March 2024 – before, and again after it was placed on a provisional licence. 

SELO Report, Sept 2022
This has been a difficult report to write due to the nature of it and what I encountered in my time there.  This is a centre with a lovely group of 20 children.  (The owner) gathers the children on the mat and there they have to wait for me quietly until I am set up. Sometimes this takes 15 – 20 minutes depending on what we are doing for that session. 
There is very little freedom for the children and they all have to do exactly what they are told when they are told.  It is a very ‘controlled’ environment.
Towards the end of my first session, a little girl and boy did not do what a teacher asked of them so lunch was withheld from them while they were left crying in the corner alone while others ate their lunch.  Children look quite fearful of the teachers at times.
On my 4^th visit, after teachers had been raising their voices continuously at the children just before they came to paint ‘the people they loved’ I observed that not one of the children could paint a picture that even looked like a person.  A lot of these children are capable and are 4 years old but if children are afraid, they have difficulty learning, and that’s exactly what I saw. 
A number of times during this particular visit (it also happened during other visits), one or two children were exasperated by teachers and were crying which developed into screaming… for one little one in particular, she was left screaming over quite a long period of time.
Children are told to either sit or stand where they are until they have done what they have been told. There seems to be very little form of comfort, kindness or empathy when children are upset in this way that I have seen.
One educator was constantly angry with a number of children. I observed her pulling a child’s clothes and yanking her backwards roughly when she wasn’t doing what she wanted. This particular educator was so angry at this screaming child that she put her over the top of a closed toilet door.

Non-compliance

Country Kindy was issued with a provisional licence on 18 Sept 2023 for breaches in 17 regulations and licensing criteria (see Appendix 2 for the full list). On 5 Dec 2023 the provisional licence was reissued with an extended compliance date of 5 Jan 2024 to support the owner to get contractors to complete work required to meet the Premises and Facilities conditions.  A further extension to the provisional licence was issued with a final compliance date of 29 March 2024 due to the centre still not meeting seven conditions (four curriculum conditions, two management conditions and Regulation 47).

The ministry had been patient with the owner of Country Kindy.  It had given the owner a lot more time to bring the centre up to scratch than it probably should have – something which other centre operators around the motu that work to keep within the law may view as being unfair to them.

SELO report date March 2024
When I look back on the advice given in regard to the curriculum, and assessment, planning and evaluation some attempt has been made at trying to do this.  The learning story for (child name) on the following pages is an example of a lack of knowledge of cultural and narrative assessment and formative writing.   Information was written, but it was at a very low level. 
(The owner) continues a directive teaching approach to assessment and planning.  And, (the owner’s) need for control has a negative impact on teachers acting as a team to assess and plan.

What would be better for families and the community

Seymour said: “It would appear that the ministry is acting against the will of the community.”[9] 

And Laube said: “We cannot afford to keep shutting down services like this when it is not in the best interests of children and families.”[10]

But the owner of Country Kindy was operating at a maximum number of 25 children.  Had the licence been cancelled and a new provider took over Country Kindy there would have been opportunity to operate at the maximum licence number of 58 child places – something that the ministry noted would have been a great outcome for families and the community.  

Parent trust in the licensing and regulatory system

Licensing is meant to provide assurance to families that a service will be safe, healthy and meets standards to provide good outcomes for their child[11]. 

But the case of Country Kindy and the political influence on licensing decisions that occurred, will reduce parent trust that any ECE service they choose for their child will have at least a basic level of quality.   

Note that in the second half of 2024 at the same time as the Country Kindy case, there was a substantial decline in ECE services downgraded or closed for non-compliance with regulations.  This data does not provide parents with the assurance they need.

Appendix 1:  Licence breaches

1. There is a first aid kit that: complies with the requirements of Appendix 1; is easily recognisable and readily accessible to adults; and is inaccessible to children. (Reg 45 PF28)
2. A record of training and/or information provided to adults who administer medicine to children (other than their own) while at the service. (Reg 46 HS29)
3. The outdoor activity space is: safe, well-drained, and suitably surfaced for a variety of activities. (Reg 45 PF13)
4. There are safe and stable nappy changing facilities that can be kept hygienically clean. These facilities are located in a designated area near to handwashing facilities and are adequately separated from areas of the service used for play or food preparation to prevent the spread of infection. The design, construction, and location of the facilities ensure that: they are safe and appropriate for the age/weight and number of children needing to use them. (Reg 45 PF25)
5. A sufficient quantity and variety of (indoor and outdoor) furniture, equipment, and materials are provided that is appropriate for the learning and abilities of the children attending. (Reg 45 PF4)
6. A record of all food served during the service’s hours of operation (other than that provided by parents for their own children). Records show the type of food provided, and are available for inspection for 3 months after the food is served. (Reg 46 HS19)
7. An annual budget guides financial expenditure. An annual budget setting out the service’s estimated revenue and expenses for the year. The budget includes at least: staffing costs, including leave entitlements; professional development costs; equipment and material costs for the ongoing purchase of new equipment and consumable materials; and provision for operational costs (such as electricity, telephone, food purchases, and other day to day items) and maintenance of the premises as appropriate. (Reg 47 GMA9)
8. An annual plan guides the service’s operation. An annual plan identifying ‘who’, ‘what’, and ‘when’ in relation to key tasks the service intends to undertake each year. (Reg 47 GMA8)
9. The service curriculum is consistent with any prescribed curriculum framework that applies to the service.  (Reg 43 C1)
10. The service curriculum is informed by assessment, planning, and evaluation (documented and undocumented) that demonstrates an understanding of children’s learning, their interests, whānau, and life contexts. (Reg 43 C2)
11. Demonstrate that adults providing education and care engage in meaningful, positive interactions to enhance children’s learning and nurture reciprocal relationships. (Reg 43 C3)
12. The practices of adults providing education and care demonstrate an understanding of children’s learning and development, and knowledge of relevant theories and practice in ECE. (Reg 43 C4)
13. A philosophy statement guides the service’s operation. (Reg 47 GMA5)
14. An ongoing process of self-review and internal evaluation helps the service maintain and improve the quality of its education and care. (Reg 47 GMA6)
15. Suitable human resource management practices are implemented. Processes for human resource management, including: Selection and appointment procedures; Job/role descriptions; Induction procedures into the services; A system of regular appraisal; Provision for professional development; A definition of serious misconduct; and Discipline/dismissal procedures. (Reg 47 GMA7)
16. Required documentation is made available as appropriate to parents and Government officials having right of entry to the service under Section 626 of the Education and Training Act 2020. (Reg 47 GMA12)
17. Have written evidence that the service is effectively governed and managed in accordance with good management practices. Implement a regular robust review/evaluation process that ensures all aspects of the service including an appraisal process and curriculum are reviewed and maintained. Have a process that ensures adequate professional support, professional development opportunities, and resources are provided to staff employed. (Regulation 43 General)

Appendix 2:  Assessment of compliance

Assessment of Country Kindy on each of the seven (7) compliance issues specified on the provisional licence that were still not met and were required to be met for the cancellation of licence to not take effect from Monday 8 July

Condition 1: Regulation 47, GMA5 Philosophy Statement

The documentation provided consisted of three draft philosophy statements, it was not clear which statement was the final statement and which statement had been adopted by the teaching team. However, the evidence provided did not demonstrate that the philosophy statement is guiding the service’s operation.

Children do not have choice about what they play with, and how they play, children do not have access to resources that they can add to the environment beyond what is chosen for them. The resources chosen for them don’t appear to link to their interests or are planned by teachers to enhance learning. They do not have choice about the routines set out for them during the day and have been observed needing to ask permission to access resources, including going to the toilet.

The philosophy discusses the value placed on those adults (teachers) working with the children to support their learning, however this is not visible in the environment or through the documentation. Teachers are not supported in their own growth and are not provided professional learning opportunities to develop their skills. Not all teachers are involved in the planning and learning development for children. They are asked to take notes on what children do throughout the day however these are not linked to children’s learning progressions, and the teachers are not required to add any context to these notes about children, removing their value.

Condition 2: Regulation 47, GMA6 Self Review and Internal Evaluation

Documentation provided did not demonstrate evaluation of teacher practice. The review examples provided (Service Philosophy and Walkie Talkies) focused on celebrating what was already current practice rather than reviewing current practice against beliefs, values and understandings of children’s learning and development and considering current theory and practice. Not all areas of the process were completed, in particular outcomes for children and teaching practices.

Parent and teacher feedback was focused on the current philosophy rather than supporting families, children and teachers to share their aspirations and understandings of early learning to inform the services philosophy. The documentation did not demonstrate that the service has authentically completed these reviews by considering current theory and practice, what is best for children and how the philosophy will guide the services operation.

There was no evidence that the service is using an internal evaluation process to maintain and improve the quality of its education and care, it was evident the process was used to validate what is currently happening in the service. Additionally, there was no evidence provided that the review of the services philosophy or the use of walk talkies impacted the services learning priorities, teaching practices or outcomes for children.

Condition 3: Regulation 43, C1 Curriculum consistent with the prescribed curriculum framework

There was no evidence of children’s individual interest and strengths being identified, considered, and planned for. Documentation indicates that planning is based on conversations between teachers and parents/caregivers, whilst children’s interests and strengths are not being considered.

Teachers are taking notes of children’s one-off moments throughout their day, these moments often do not relate to the learning goals set by the teachers and do not provide evidence of teachers providing an environment that supports children’s learning through their interests and strengths. There is also no evidence of these child moments informing learning progressions for children.

Whilst Te Whāriki goals and strands are being referenced, these are related to either modifying behaviour, routines or the child’s family context without consideration of the child’s interest, strengths and the services local curriculum.

The service’s curriculum standard policy discusses the intention for all teachers to be responsible for children under a primary education and care system, (but) documented evidence did not demonstrate this. Only one teacher’s evidence for children was provided. The evidence provided did not demonstrate that individual children’s strength, interests, abilities, knowledge, skills, emotions and dispositions are being considered when planning for children and setting an environment for their learning.

Children are restricted in their play options, the items they play with, and the daily routines they are required to engage in.

There is no evidence that indicates the service’s specific and localised learning priorities are being put into practice through documentation or in the ways teachers support children in achieving these priorities. The service’s learning priorities are not clearly outlined or reflected in the curriculum documentation or internal evaluation reports.

Furthermore, there was no observable or documented evidence of teachers actively supporting children’s learning or providing opportunities for children to lead their own learning.

Additionally, your (the centre owner) email on 4 January 2024 noted that there was difficulty in implementing the curriculum standard policy sustainably and without interruption due to staffing challenges, illness, and personal concerns. This is still evident as the staffing situation has not changed and relievers are being used to ensure staffing requirements are met with yourself remaining as the only person implementing curriculum.

Condition 4: Regulation 43, C2 Assessment

One teacher is writing learning stories for children based on conversations with parents. Other teachers in the service are minimally recording moments in time during the children’s day, there was no evidence that those teachers working with children are noticing children’s interests, planning and extending children’s learning based on their interests and life context.

The assessment, planning, and evaluation of children’s learning is primarily focused on modifying children’s behaviour, engaging them in routine activities, managing personal routines like toileting, and fostering friendships. 

The documentation often lacks clarity on the specific child to which it pertains.

Children’s learning plans do not align with the goals and outcomes that have been planned for the individual child. The narratives within the learning plans are moments in time and do not detail the specific learning for the child. The learning plans do not demonstrate the role teachers have played to support children’s learning or illustrate teaching techniques that they are using to extend children’s learning. There is also no evidence of learning progressions overtime for children.

The learning environment is set with resources that do not have links to children’s learning and children do not have access to resources of their choice. Teachers are not identifying children’s interests therefore resources are not added or changed over months at a time.

The ongoing staffing challenges and your inability to recruit and maintain qualified teachers is concerning to the Ministry. This results in the service often operating on minimum qualified teachers and person responsible staffing requirements, with a heavy reliance on relieving staff. The Ministry is not assured that the service curriculum standard policy can be fully implemented and sustainable.

Condition 5: Regulation 43, C3 Interactions

Teachers were observed interacting with children, however these interactions are transactional and do not appear intentional (to support children’s learning progression). One teacher indicated to the Ministry that she didn’t even like children she was just there for the money.
(Note: It is not clear in the Ministry’s report what the position was of the “teacher”, if this can mean unqualified staff, the head teacher/owner, or one of the relievers. It was also reported that staff turnover was high and the centre therefore relied on the relievers and the owner to meet qualified staffing requirements).

Teachers are making notes of moments in the child’s day however there was no evidence that these moments are used to enhance children’s learning through conversations, acknowledging their interests and providing an environment to support their interests.

The curriculum standard policy and other documentation provided has not demonstrated that teachers understand what role modelling positive interactions looks like and the benefits of doing this for children’s learning. There was no evidence of reflection in the internal evaluation examples that demonstrated teachers understood the role they play in children’s learning.

Condition 6: Regulation 43, C4 Adults Knowledge

The documentation and practice of teachers observed with children did not demonstrate that teachers are focused on supporting children’s specific learning goals or that there is an understanding of extending children’s learning through play.

Teachers appeared to be mostly in supervisory role and did not appear to be using teaching techniques and theories that were part of the documentation for individual children.

The environment is consistently set for learning with the same few resources that often don’t link to documentation and have no relevance to planning. Teachers don’t appear to provide resources that supports children’s learning goals and are often relying on games to demonstrate how they are supporting children to modify their behaviour of following the services routines.

Internal evaluations were not reflective and did not identify current theory and practice on what makes a quality education and care model.  There was no evidence of robust, effective planning and evaluation of learning for children that demonstrated an understanding of children’s learning and development and the use of current theory. There was no evidence to demonstrate teachers are following the service curriculum standard policy, the services identified learning priorities or the service philosophy. This does not demonstrate teachers understand children’s learning and development or that they have knowledge of relevant theories and practices in early childhood education

Condition 7: Regulation 47(1)(a) and 1(c) – Governance, Management and Administration standard

The Ministry is not satisfied that the service provider has demonstrated that the service is effectively governed and managed.

The service has provided both Governance and Management and Curriculum manuals, (but) there is no evidence that these manuals have been implemented or that there is a plan to ensure sustainable implementation.

There is still no evidence of the service management and staff having considered the services Learning Priorities or local curriculum. The Internal evaluation documentation provided did not demonstrate that there is a regular robust review process that is guiding the service operation.

Whilst internal evaluation had been undertaken the examples were not genuine reviews that ensured current theory and practice, how children learn and what good practice looks like were considered. There was no evidence provided to assure that there is a system in place that is guiding the quality of the services education provision.

It was also noted that during times when the Manager is required to focus on human resources management, staffing concerns, incidents, complaints and personal issues, areas such as curriculum and internal evaluation do not continue to be prioritised and that other teachers/staff in the service are not required to keep the continuity of this happening. The services management of curriculum and governance tasks requires you to complete all areas however the current non-compliance and evidence provided demonstrates that often other work supersedes this, and curriculum and internal evaluation implementation don’t occur consistently.

The service’s leadership is not effective or efficient, aspects required by regulation are not well understood and do not occur concurrently.

The adults (teachers) working with the children are not expected to teach or understand their role as teachers they are simply in a supervisory capacity and state that they have not been provided any professional development in their role. Therefore, we cannot be assured that there are effective systems in place or that the current systems and processes are well embedded and sustainable as they rely heavily on there being no staffing changes in the service.

Appendix 2:  Ministry letter to the ECC

24 June 2024
Simon Laube
Chief Executive Officer Early Childhood Council

Tēnā koe Simon
Re: ECC letter dated 27 May 2024 in relation to Country Kindy Ltd (45768)

You will be aware that the Ministry has communicated the decision to cancel the licence issued to Country Kindy Ltd (45768) effective from 5:00pm on Monday 8 July 2024.

While I do not intend to provide further details about the decision to cancel, other than what has been provided in the cancellation notice, ECC have raised a number of matters in the letter dated 27 May 2024 in relation to the regulatory process. These are better responded to directly as they will support ECC’s understanding of the regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Framework

It might be helpful to begin by explaining the regulatory framework that all licensed early learning services are required to operate within, as there is some misinformation in your letter of 27 May 2024. This will help support ECC’s response and understanding when providing advice and support to early learning services.

The Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008 (the Regulations) set out regulatory requirements that must be met by all licensed services. The relevant Licensing Criteria 2008 (the licensing criteria) for each service type are used to assess compliance with the minimum standards in the Regulations. Service providers must meet or exceed the requirements set out in the Regulations at all times.

A provisional licence is issued to allow the service provider to continue to operate while remedying the identified non-compliance. Depending on the nature of the non-compliances varying timeframes are applied. A specified date for compliance will usually be not more than three months after the date the provisional notice is issued (Regulation 16(2A)). This is because the intent of the Regulations is not to allow a service to operate for long periods of time while non-compliant with regulatory requirements.

It is the service provider’s responsibility to demonstrate compliance with the conditions within the specified timeframe. Service providers are also able to demonstrate compliance within a shorter timeframe.

Regulation 17(4) states the Secretary must cancel a provisional licence by written notice to the service provider if he or she is satisfied that

(a) any conditions specified under Regulation 16(1)(a) has not been complied with by the date specified for compliance; and

(b) compliance with the condition is still required.

Before cancelling a licence, the Secretary is required to take all reasonable steps to give the licensed service provider notice of the Secretary’s intention to do so and to take into account all representations received from the service provider within a reasonable time of the service provider being given notice (Regulation 32(2)).

Ministry role

The Ministry as the regulator has a role when non-compliance with regulations is identified. The Ministry undertakes these roles in different ways such as providing:

• substantial information and guidance on the Ministry website
• advice and guidance throughout any application and intervention process
• sound decision making processes that are informed by intervention tools that are relevant to the breach and in line with natural justice
• consideration to extend the timeframes for compliance
• information updates via the regulator early learning pānui, and
• government funded professional development

In this case the Ministry has applied the regulations and provided support and guidance to Country Kindy Ltd in the following ways:

Regulatory pathway

Country Kindy Ltd was issued a provisional licence on 18 September 2023, the provisional licence set out 17 conditions with specified timeframes for compliance for each condition. Nine conditions were to be complied with by 15 December 2023 which was the longest timeframe for compliance. Had the service provider demonstrated compliance on 15 December 2023 with all of the conditions, the licence would have been reclassified to full in December 2023.

On 5 December 2023 the Ministry extended the timeframe for compliance for 11 conditions to 18 January 2024.  Had the service provider demonstrated compliance with the conditions on 18 January 2024, the licence would have been reclassified to full in January 2024. The provisional licence was further extended on 19 January 2024, when we assessed the service provider remained non-compliant with the specified conditions, the extended timeframe was 29 March 2024.  The Ministry has been fair and reasonable with the timeframes for compliance and extending those timeframes on two occasions, however, it has not been two years as you have stated.  A notice of intention to cancel was issued on 29 April 2024, as seven conditions specified in the provisional licence had not been complied with and compliance was still required.

The Ministry has provided support and guidance to the service by:

• funding four professional development contracts at a total cost of $40,769 between June 2022 and 29 March 2024, with professional development providers who have proven track records that demonstrate they have the capability to strengthen and improve teaching practice and written evidence via multiple contracts that they have completed for the Ministry.
• Ministry staff have provided multiple opportunities to meet with the service provider to provide clarification and advice throughout the licensing process.
• Ministry staff have provided both written and verbal feedback on the progress being made at various times throughout the process, and.
• Ministry staff have visited the service on multiple occasions to ensure the service provider is working towards compliance to clarify any questions and offer advice.

The ECC’s view of the Country Kindy Assessment

You have stated in your letter that the seven remaining conditions are not enforceable, and the service is clearly compliant and has always been fully compliant. No evidence has been provided to support the view that the service was compliant before the provisional licence was issued or that you have reviewed all the documents provided by the service provider or documentation that is available on site, or that you have observed any teaching practice on site pre or post the provisional licence.

No evidence has been provided to show how ECC have provided advice or guidance or supported the service provider to demonstrate compliance.

In contrast the Ministry’s assessment is based on the information provided by the service provider, evidence collated at licensing visits, observations of teaching practice and multiple conversations and meetings with the service provider before and after the provisional licence being issued.

Country Kindy Ltd is legally required to meet the Regulations and licensing criteria during the hours the service is licensed to operate and any identified breaches are legally enforceable as set out above.

I can assure you that Country Kindy Ltd has received relevant information throughout this process in accordance with natural justice.    Nāku noa, nā

---

[1] https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/opinion/heather-du-plessis-allan-the-country-kindy-situation-is-beyond-ridiculous/

[2] Letter from Simon Laube to the Ministry of Education, 27/05/24. https://fyi.org.nz/request/27575/response/107057/attach/5/1332447%20Appendix%20A%20Redacted.pdf

[3] Letter from Simon Laube to the Ministry of Education, 27/05/24. https://fyi.org.nz/request/27575/response/107057/attach/5/1332447%20Appendix%20A%20Redacted.pdf

[4] Ministry letter to the centre owner and cc to the Early Childhood Council dated 24/06/24.

[5] Ministry letter to the centre owner and cc to the Early Childhood Council dated 24/06/24.

[6] https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350334306/ministry-appears-be-acting-against-will-community-shutting-down-kindergarten-act

[7] https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/country-kindy-remain-open

[8] https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/david-seymour-associate-education-minister-blames-red-tape-for-country-kindy-closure/

[9] https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350334306/ministry-appears-be-acting-against-will-community-shutting-down-kindergarten-act

[10] Letter from Simon Laube to the Ministry of Education, 25/03/24.

[11] ECE Parents Council https://www.myece.org.nz/parents-regulation-review/

Disclaimer

This is an opinion piece. It presents information available from the Ministry of Education and reported in newspapers, press releases and in the media in general.

Any views expressed are the author’s own and are not necessarily those of the Office of Early Childhood Education or anyone associated with the OECE.