I didn't catch David Shearer's education speech yesterday, even though it was in my neighbourhood. The reaction to the speech has been mostly positive, and it is a pleasant change to learn that Shearer has been talking about bread and butter issues for a change.
From Labour's release here are the four main highlights of the announcement:
Labour will extend reading recovery to all NZ schools because our children shouldn’t be dropping out without basic skills.
This is a good move. The Reading Recovery programme works well, so extending it to more schools makes sense. The cost of doing so isn't huge, considering the downstream costs to society of children with poor literacy, and it demonstrates that Labour are committed to helping those who need it the most.
Labour will work with community agencies to put food in schools so children are no longer failing to learn because of hardship at home.
This is another good move. There's something seriously wrong when thousands of kids are going to school hungry every day. Politically it is also smart, because it brings more focus onto the issue of child poverty, an issue National are particularly vulnerable on. Additionally, using government money to feed hungry kids is something most people can easily understand and get behind.
The fact that Cathy Odgers hates the policy is also an excellent sign.
Labour will introduce clear and easy to understand school report cards so that parents know whether their child’s school is up to scratch.
I have no idea what this means, but it sounds a bit like the argument for National Standards. Maybe it's just some harmless bullshit inserted into Shearer's speech to appeal to the "centre voter".
Labour will develop new ideas to bridge the gap between the classroom and workforce so young people go into further training or work instead of ending up on the unemployment scrapheap.
I'm not sure how anyone could think this was a bad idea, but we will need to see what concrete solutions Labour come up with. With over two years until the next election, they don't need to release everything yet.
Monday, September 10, 2012
9 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Additionally, using government money to feed hungry kids is something most people can easily understand and get behind."
ReplyDeleteI'm yet to be convinced that the main strategy for dealing with hungry kids is turning schools into soup kitchens.
Government money already feeds many kids.
If the kids are still hungry then shouldn't we be looking at why:
a) whether benefits and WFF aren't enough?
b) other than money, what causes kids to not have enough food?
Many kids also have parent poverty - should schools take that task over too?
I'm yet to be convinced that the main strategy for dealing with hungry kids is turning schools into soup kitchens.
DeleteI think you'll find that Labour ends up having more than one policy to address child poverty.
If the kids are still hungry then shouldn't we be looking at why
Could it be because in the vast majority of cases their parents can't afford to feed them?
There are a whole bunch of ways to tackle that problem, but let's accept that whatever any government does to address inequality or poverty in a broader sense will take time. So in the meantime let's feed some kids!
Looking at a broader sense there are other things that will take time to address - kids are being hurt and abused physically and mentally at home, kids don't get enough sleep at home, kids don't get enough love at home.
DeleteIn the meantime should schools deal with all that too?
So your argument against feeding hungry kids is that if we start to feed kids we'll soon have to house then at school too?
DeleteSo if we can't solve all of problems in a child's life in one go, we should do nothing?
Most low-decile schools already feed kids. This policy just extends that.
C,mon Scott, DNFTT.
DeleteYou can't call a Minister Outside Cabinet a troll!
DeleteAs a parent with daugthers at a Decile 5 school - where they have classmates that don't have lunch - or very little let alone breakfeast, I for one would be happy to have my taxes go towards providing food for the children who need it.
ReplyDelete"Most low-decile schools already feed kids. This policy just extends that."
ReplyDeleteYes, the problem is already being addressed, presumably targeting the most in need. Labour want to extend it. How far should it be extended? Until there are no hungry kids? What if they don't get a decent feed at night either, keep them at school until after supper?
And how many kids are hungry due to a lack of food at home due to a genuine lack of money? Most kids will say they are hungry if there's food on offer dished up on a plate.
There may be a reasonable case for putting more money towards this, but I haven't seen any detailed analysis. All I have seen so far is politicians suggesting feel good feed kids policies.
I'm not simply against it - I regularly donate to help feed kids - I'm questioning if it's the best approach.
Best University In Tanzania
ReplyDelete