Hard News: Chew before swallowing
71 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
John Key best start thinking for himself and not let the spin-doctors who ruined Brash lead him by the nose. He will get into bog of his own making on this 'under-class' issue. Perhaps he could quietly ask the Teachers who see the kids each day what is going on?
As far as charity goes, there's plenty of people out there working hard with no thanks for others in need. People got to wanna give anyway. John Key telling us to give won't help.
-
Well, my partner teaches in a lower socio economic school here in Nelson and they certainly have issues with kids turning up with no food, having had no breakfast because there is no food in the house. It was the same at schools in Wellington in the 1980s too.
A few of the schools that she's taught at have served up hot toast to hungry kids before classes.
One of the other issues they have is kids who come to school on Fridays who've had no sleep because the Thursday night post-pub party came back to their place.
National won't do jack about any of this of course, but it doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
-
National won't do jack about any of this of course, but it doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
Agreed, and I think that's been the consensus here about the underclass theme in Key's original speech.
My point was that the "new analysis" just isn't what the Herald says it is.
-
There is something positively Dickensian about the ideas being thrown about right now on charity and poverty. Surely, regardless of political bent, we have moved on the last 200 years from solutions that were crappy even during the industrial revolution.
-
I'm not sure I'd like a government that could "do" something about Thursday night post pub parties to be honest.
-
I'm not sure I'd like a government that could "do" something about Thursday night post pub parties to be honest.
Real. I thought John Key was about to promise to make teenage girls eat their breakfasts for a moment there on Morning Report today.
-
Not eating well is an issue and probably one factor causing poor performance and behavioural problems at school.
However, in the case of the Herald you may be attributing to malice what is adequately explained by the reporter and editor in question not having had breakfast that day and getting dazed and confused with all the numbers whirling around in front of them.
-
I'm not sure I'd like a government that could "do" something about Thursday night post pub parties to be honest.
No, I agree. But it's a bit like the kids obesity issue. Kids suffer because their parents behave in a certain way, it shouldn't happen but it does, and there seems to be no way of stopping it because, if adults aren't breaking the law, they can behave as irresponsibly as they like.
I don't have an answer, except to try to take some responsibility for my own actions with my kids. Doesn't help the poor little blighters that can't think clearly every Friday morning though eh?
-
The gulf in logic in John Key's 'plan' to challenge businesses to provide food in schools makes my head hurt. What about cutting to the chase, and just saying his government would do it if he got in, rather than fobbing the responsibility off onto others? Or couldn't he really give a sh*t?
-
My point was that the "new analysis" just isn't what the Herald says it is.
Yes, sorry about that, I realised I was diverging from your main point. I guess the point I was trying to make is that this type of issue should be removed from party politics. If Key has some radical ideas on solving poverty problems that have been happening pretty much forever in parts of NZ, all power to him.
It's on his agenda straight after implementing cold fusion I suspect.
-
I'm not sure I'd like a government that could "do" something about Thursday night post pub parties to be honest.
Except, turn that around.
Because I'd like "A government that would do something about parenting behaviour which adversely affects the development of children."
If it becomes about positive steps like helping families have enough money to provide breakfast, and helping educate families about positive parenting and giving parents who are struggling support and skills, then it's not a bad thing.
Personally I'd be annoyed if my neighbours had a party noisy enough to keep my kids awake on a Thursday night, let alone what it might be doing for their own kids.
-
Because I'd like "A government that would do something about parenting behaviour which adversely affects the development of children."
My teacher partner Jo has had kids tell her that they didn't get much sleep last night because they slept in the laundry cupboard. That's where mum hides them when the party goers arrive home from the pub.
Great sources of hair raising stories, teachers are.
-
Great sources of hair raising stories, teachers are.
Yes. Although not all of the ones that I recall from my schooldays were true.
-
Russell, a correction for the post:
and noted that the survey did not cover some of the biggest breakfast-eaters, 16 to 18 year-olds.
He actually said they were the biggest breakfast skippers, not eaters.
Audio from this morning is online:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/hungry_kids
It kicks off with the Quigley interview. -
Having been a school Board Chair for a decile 2 school and with a partner who is a school principal (her's is a higher decile school) I do know that nutrition is a problem in schools. The principal at the school I was the chair of had a supply of food that was given out to children who turned up hungry, but that is only half the problem.
As RB points out, the Herald showed little real analysis of the problem. The big issue, IMHO, is the absolute crap nutrition most kids get at school these days. Those who turn up to school hungry are just part of a bigger nutrition problem for our children that we as a society seem to be ignoring.
Poor nutrition, whether hunger or sugar/fat laden processed food, means that children underperform in school and are disruptive. It also means that in later life they already have the "foundation" for poor health.
The USA has some good resources for those who want to read more. The USDA in particular has a good collection.
While many will say that "free will" is important here and society should not impose dietry standards for children at school it is the same society that will face the health bills in a few years time for the right to have "free will".
So, the issue is not about the lack of nutrition some children face when going to school in the morning, but the nutrition of NZ children in general.
-
I am appalled that the front page of my newspaper features
“ Labour slams Tory charity.”I am perturbed that our gracious and caring underclass denier Prime Minister refutes the inspirational move by National, as “ extrapolated from an anecdote”, while the smarmy Maharey claims the figures are a “guesstimate”
However it is good news to see Peter Dunne say that the plan to put food into schools is a good one and should be expanded.
-
But on a more important note than this breakfast thing, Russell, no musical entertainment tonight?
-
My wife, also a teacher, taught in the UK where school dinners evolved to counter the fact that parents weren't sending their kids to school with lunch. Initially, she saw it as a huge waste of resources but having taught in one of the rougher parts of London (the sarf east, right between Crystal Palace & Millwall football clubs) realised it was essential to get the kids eating something. As the Jamie Oliver programme shows, it was easy to let standards slip so the schools ended up feeding them unhealthy stodge as well. I would be very surprised to see school dinners or something similar happening large scale in NZ
On the tory charity charge, one of the Usual Suspects over at I See Red wrote:
I deal with the underclass everyday, I am aware it exists all right. I look at what kids raised on welfare get compared with what my middle class Doctor and Lawyer friends give their kids and the difference is striking. But yes politically I did not think about the underclass and nor does the Labour Party very much
Ignoring Tim's Liar-bore barb at the end, this is typical of the bleeding heart conservatives - we don't care about the poor, except when we can score political points off them.
-
New Zealanders are uncomfortable with discussing ideological conflict, because we have a national myth of egalitarianism and conformity. But attitudes to social security and poverty are touchstone philosophical issues that define who you are politically. John Key is a fundamentally a Tory, otherwise he wouldn't be in the National party, and Toryism has never accepted socialism of any flavour. The whole Tory Victorian idea of social Darwinism, of deserving and undeserving poor, of punishing the poor for their plight, and of relief from poverty being largely a function of arbitrary charity that allows crumbs to fall from the table of the rich into the outstretched hands of the suitably grateful poor is rooted in a deeply judgmental and conservative Christian morality. I suppose that’s why the charity model is so popular in the USA, where we are supposed to cheer when mega-billionaires give hundreds of millions back to "deserving" charities. But this is the attitude our grandparents and great-grand parents determined had to be done away with. They fought for - and won in this country - social security and the idea that everyone should be free of the fear of want regardless who they were. The New Zealand way, our egalitarianism, is really the "applied Christianity" of Michael Joseph Savage's social security made real.
John Key's prescriptions are just a return to the ideas of noblisse oblige discredited by the failure of the ruling elites to prevent either the Great War or the Great Depression. Nothing he says will satisfy those who oppose his ideological starting point. But he has potentially done the left a favour. By squarely placing the issue of income disparity and wealth distribution on the political agenda, he has opened the way for a debate on how those disparities and inequalities came about and how to best roll back the "reforms" that created them in the first place.
-
Maybe dad4justice can explain to this businessman how my incredible expertise in so many walks of life can should be applied to nutrition of children. Should we leave it to other businesses in the field, like Pepsi Cola, McDs or Pizza Hut? All seems pretty hit and miss to me.
The answer I experienced as a school kid myself was state supplied milk in the morning and decent, if slightly inedible, state supplied school meals. As a business man my taxes would go towards that, so my charitable ego would satiated...
If Keys had the gumption to support those two initiatives he would get my vote in the blink of an eye.
-
My boys simply would not eat breakfast from the age of about 7 even though they had choices of cereals, toast etc. They are both at Varsity now and still don't eat breakfast. They say that they can't eat as they are simply not hungry. Some of my pupils say the same and leave the food in their school bags. Would they be included in the "damn statistics" as hungry, or will someone ask the right question to separate hungry from non-eaters? (There are some who are really hungry and we should be concerned for them.)
-
merc,
I don't eat breakfast, never have, and I'm relatively normal, mawp. Is this call to breakfast part of mainstreaming NZ? Indeed the whole thing is getting pretty creepy. Was it just me or was John's little car ride with the young Maori girl, when he swung on her and said (to the camera I think), "We're going to have a good time arn't we?" totally fecking Pygmalian?
-
Because I'd like "A government that would do something about parenting behaviour which adversely affects the development of children."
If it becomes about positive steps like helping families have enough money to provide breakfast, and helping educate families about positive parenting and giving parents who are struggling support and skills, then it's not a bad thing.
If you ask me, legislating parenting is a mighty slippery slope. After all, your definition of 'behaviour which adversely affects the development of children' (ensuring they are not exposed to violence and enjoy proper nutrition) might be awfully different to some future governments definition (parents must ensure their children attend one hour of religious education each day to ensure proper moral upbringing).
Parenting legislation is classic 'Road to Serfdom' stuff - it sounds great in principle, but how are you going to monitor it? Should parents inform on each other? Should teachers inform on parents?
-
merc,
I liked it when it got to the children reporting on their parents, that was really effective.
Enough or too much! Blake -
Urban girl - I'd be surprised if I ate breakfast more than a handful of times throughout high school. I preferred to sleep in the mornings than eat. I'd get up at 8:20 and be at school at 8:35. Actually, come to think of it not much has changed, except i can get away with being later to work, and I'll either force myself to have a bowl of muesli in front of my computer or *coff* get a doughnut for morning tea.
If it becomes about positive steps like helping families have enough money to provide breakfast, and helping educate families about positive parenting and giving parents who are struggling support and skills, then it's not a bad thing.
I think this is a crucial point. I have to say I liked Key's original speech - mainly the idea of making philanthropy cool. There are already many individuals & businesses doing great stuff in their communities, but it's dogwhistles that sell papers and as a result we just read more and more about "issues" that we feel powerless to control. I liked being reminded that we can make a difference, rather than hearing more about how the government is failing to fix everything.
BUT, I think the biggest problems lie with families in which intergenerational poverty has become stubborn perpetuation. Cool, get a business to sponsor a sports team so that poor kids can participate, but the kids that most need it often won't last long - primarily because their parents are indifferent at best, and at worst will actively stonewall their efforts: "we don't need charity", "staying out late all the time, you should be at home doing your chores", "waste of time, you'll never be good at anything", etc.
Any parent would insist they want the best opportunities for their kids, but when push come to shove, there are some pretty troubled parents out there who would subconsciously prefer that their kids end up as unhappy as they are. To save their kids you have to save them first & it's probably going to take something other than business sponsorship.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go have breakfast.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.