Budget: corporate “charity” not the solution to Feeding the Kids

24 comments on “Budget: corporate “charity” not the solution to Feeding the Kids ”

• Comments are now closed

1. One Anonymous Knucklehead 1

   15 May 2013 at 9:51 am

   typo: “child poverty and affordable poverty”?

   The private sector cannot compete with public provision of basic needs since they are required to make a profit. If this is the National Party’s hastily cobbled together in the face of dismal internal polling plan it is a typically ideological approach.

   The first step to tackling child poverty is to attack the root cause: neoliberalism must be rooted out and and crushed wherever it is found. The intrusion of the profit motive into public service must end.
   • karol 1.1

     15 May 2013 at 9:55 am

     Thanks, OAK. Typo fixed.

     Agree with your analysis.
2. One Anonymous Knucklehead 2

   15 May 2013 at 10:03 am

   Before the wingnut whining starts: “It’s too difficult” “It’s too expensive” “nice to have” “but but but Laaaabbbboooouuuurrr”,

   Whatever it takes.

   It’s almost unheard of for a child to show up hungry or homeless. Finland provides three years of maternity leave and subsidized day care to parents, and preschool for all 5-year-olds, where the emphasis is on play and socializing. In addition, the state subsidizes parents, paying them around 150 euros per month for every child until he or she turns 17. Ninety-seven percent of 6-year-olds attend public preschool, where children begin some academics. Schools provide food, medical care, counseling and taxi service if needed. Stu­dent health care is free.
   • ghostrider888 2.1

     15 May 2013 at 12:27 pm

     great links; “top 10% of grads, Masters in Ed. required; Identifies Bill Gates funding of the “race to the top” status quo in the US; Oh well, heart-warming to reflect on as the closing bell rings.
   • Mike S 2.2

     15 May 2013 at 8:20 pm

     Further to your post, Finland also has no exams in it’s education system and no competition.It has no private schools, all schools are publicly funded. Children can basically decide what they wish to study. There is no centralized curriculum like NCEA, teachers make up their own curriculum. As mentioned in another post, all teachers require a masters degree. There are no national standards. Finland consistently comes top in the world in terms of education standards and ability of students upon leaving school.

     In my opinion, the biggie in terms of student achievment is competition. We are constantly taught to compete whether at school or in adult life. Proponents say competition is good whether in business, sport or education. They claim that humans are by nature competitive, individualistic and selfish. However this is definitely incorrect. Numerous studies have shown that competition is a hindrance to excellence. It is difficult for many people to accept that competition is detrimental to students learning as from the day we are born we are taught to compete.
3. mac1 3

   15 May 2013 at 10:32 am

   I have seen food in schools in Japan provided to all students for lunch- a nutritious, tasty (I ate two meals- on separate days I hasten to add) and involving the student group and teacher in distribution to the class at lunch time followed by whole group clean-up- good social skills are learned in this.

   What is being foreshadowed for the budget is a first step and should be recognised with some commendation.

   However, low decile schools are not the only schools which have children in poverty and which have children in nutritional debt, by which I mean either hungry or poorly fed. I’m an ex-teacher of health who also got involved in dealing with problematic boys at a state secondary school for boys. Even with good education about wise and adequate nutrition, it still didn’t always happen. Many problem boys I dealt with had poor eating histories- I investigated this as part of dealing with them.

   This school has a decile ranking of six or seven. It takes all boys from the area, from all ranges on the economic scale except for the very well-off some of whom pack their sons off to boarding school. Some of those boys suffered from poor nutrition- little or no breakfast, poor food when supplied or bought from the canteen or local shops.

   I’ve seen the results of poor nutrition in the classroom. One poor, thin, small for his age, boy shivering in warmish weather from lack of energy because his drug-taking solo father did not supply even evening meals regularly. The boy now ‘grown’ into a man now comes before the courts. He had little education, and little prospects even then.

   I wonder also what will happen to those children who habitually are late to school. Will they get some of this free breakfast? Because they are late, they will have missed breakfast at home. I hope that the school breakfast is fed to them during school time anyway to capture those children who are just on time or are late.

   Surely the state can supply food for all kids in all schools as do the Japanese? The proposals for school breakfasts will go some way but will it apply to secondary schools as well? To all decile rankings? It should, to be fair and even-handed.

   If not, then ways must be devised for the state to allow children with poor nutrition to be fed adequately. That would include living wages, cheaper food, child allowances, education, monitoring of at risk children etc etc etc.

   I live in a region where we have the highest food costs in the country combined with the lowest wage economy. We as a community live with these problems daily. Let’s continue to develop this good start as far as we need to. We cannot afford not to.
4. AsleepWhileWalking 4

   15 May 2013 at 10:39 am

   Yet again those in anything higher than the “wealthy” decile three schools are abandoned.
5. tracey 5

   15 May 2013 at 11:09 am

   Like giving Sky more tables and pokies in return for a convention centre aucklanders dont even know they need? That won’t impact children, at all
   • David H 5.1

     15 May 2013 at 11:06 pm

     And that nice Sky Casino will teach them how to count, 2 people in, with $400.00 = 2 people broke 1 hour later. But forgot to carry the 3 starving kids at home. But that’s ok, that nice Mr Key has organised food for the kiddies. It’s left overs from the, local FF restaurants, and for a treat a loaf of 3 day old bread to take home to last the nigt.
6. Mary 6

   15 May 2013 at 11:53 am

   Hone’s bill focuses on deciles 1 and 2, but Mana’s policy is to eventually move food in schools across the board in order to jettison notions of charity that inevitably come with such an approach. Mana’s intention is to base the policy more in terms of how we run our education system rather than as a welfare-based initiative. It was always, though, in these early stages, a golden opportunity for National to come along and hijack it with its poor law-based belief that private charity should replace state welfare altogether. Yet another mechanism that helps NAct continue its war on the poor, driving further wedges between the haves and have nots, and the only way they can push their agenda is by doing it by stealth in order to avoid the disdain and public outrage that would ordinarily stop such outrageousness in its tracks. Total slime.
   • ghostrider888 6.1

     15 May 2013 at 12:30 pm

     yes, Nats have been politicking off Labour / Green / Mana signals.
     • Mary 6.1.1

       15 May 2013 at 1:04 pm

       Labour and the Greens now have to call Key et al on what they’re doing for what it is, and say they’ll extend the food in schools across the board as an as-off-right policy, which includes taking all corporate charity out of the equation.
7. Populuxe1 7

   15 May 2013 at 12:15 pm

   I have no time for stupid ideological either/or propositions – tarting state ‘charity’ up as a basic human right is not much better than putting ‘charity’ in the hands of the nobless oblige of rich patrons and the largess corporations. The qualities of Mercy are not strained. The problem must be tackled horizontally with every possible resource; corporate, private, and state working together as a comunity. Children are too important for political pissing matches. The stakes are too high.
   • ghostrider888 7.1

     15 May 2013 at 12:30 pm

     butter both sides
   • karol 7.2

     15 May 2013 at 12:39 pm

     No policies are non-political, including yours, Pop. And the government policy looks to include all the agencies you refer to, with all the weaknesses I have mentioned.
     • Populuxe1 7.2.1

       15 May 2013 at 12:56 pm

       You would first have to prove to me, Karol, that any other party would be giving more money to those agencies on the ground in the first place. Can’t see Labour doing that. Therefore this policy is an improvement, and surprisngly it would seem to go above and beyond anything the last Labour government achieved. Those “weaknesses” you’ve highlighted are almost entirely the result of various interest groups wanting keep a hierarchy of control and a lot of blind idealism when there is clearly a consensus that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with. Any delays caused by political grandstanding are days of nutrition lost to poor children. The responsibility for the wellbeing of children extends well beyond family and community.
       • ghostrider888 7.2.1.1

         15 May 2013 at 1:04 pm

         what was your academic specialty Pop, if you don’t mind the enquiry.
         • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.2.1.1.1

           15 May 2013 at 1:07 pm

           He has a doctorate in sophistry.
           • ghostrider888 7.2.1.1.1.1

             15 May 2013 at 1:37 pm

             That IS very funny; longest smile of the dayo
           • ghostrider888 7.2.1.1.1.2

             15 May 2013 at 1:42 pm

             actually, gorgias!
       • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.2.1.2

         15 May 2013 at 1:06 pm

         Bullshit. Labour is not the government. When they were inequality decreased. What has National done? Attacked workers, done its best to drive wages down, but now here’s some charity.

         Like a mugger selling crutches.
         • Colonial Viper 7.2.1.2.1

           15 May 2013 at 9:17 pm

           Bullshit. Labour is not the government. When they were inequality decreased.

           And home affordability decreased. And reductions in child poverty slowed down. And shut down schools. And got rid of the special benefit. And introduced work testing for beneficiaries. And…you get the idea.
8. tracey 8

   15 May 2013 at 2:29 pm

   If National is going to supply food for decile 1 and 2 children does that mean they think those children are experiencing some kind of negative effect of pvoerty? If yes, how did they measure Poverty and do they still say that poverty is too hard to define (see PBennett’s numerous answers in the house). So are they throwing money at a programme pretending to address a problem they dont believe exists, are they trying to buy votes from decile 1 and 2 school parents and teachers?
9. tracey 9

   15 May 2013 at 2:34 pm

   “Government would provide funding to ensure all decile 1 and 2 schools are able to provide nutritional breakfasts and lunches to all their students.

   The bill gives schools the flexibility to implement practices that work best for them.
   Part of the funding would be used to employ somebody to co-ordinate the programme.

   This person would work with local businesses, charitable organisations, other schools, community networks, and of course school families themselves, to buy food and prepare meals.”

   I guess we have to wait ont he details but if the funding is for a person to manage the programme it may be that person has to find the money/suppliers (for free) to provide the food. Remember any donation attracts a 33% rebate. When JK made this change in 2008/2009 he expected charitable donations that benefit society at large to increase. I wonder if they have?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS