Thought for the day:
. . . Schools taking on the responsibility of feeding ‘the poor kids’ will not change their circumstances. It will simply mask the neglect that is taking place in some situations and free up a bit of discretionary spending money for others who are willing to take advantage of a programme that wouldn’t actually be intended for them.
Until we change the policy settings to rid ourselves of the ‘entitlement’ culture that seems so entrenched among some, we as a country will continue to produce generations of young people who are genuinely mystified as to why they aren’t receiving even more handouts than they already are.
This is the conclusion of an email to Whaleoil from a school principal.
It gives a very different perspective on feeding children at schools debate.
So Ele, you oppose Fonterra’s programme of giving milk to school children across the country.
Interesting…
Putting words in my mouth again Robert. I didn’t express a view on the quote and I wrote a post on Monday about Fonterra’s milk in schools programme in which I said it should be targeted to go where it is needed: http://homepaddock.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/fussy-kids-arent-hungry-kids/
If you follow the link in the post and read the whole of the principal’s email you’ll see s/he doesn’t think the pupils at her/his school need milk or food from the school.
So, Ele, you believe that giving children breakfast at schools will “mask the neglect”, but giving children milk at schools, wont?
That’s a curious contradiction.
The principal commented on the Fonterra situation, I find upon reading the article:
“The conversation then shifted to why we were not part of Fonterra’s milk in schools programme. It followed a similar pattern. I didn’t sign up for it (largely) because it would just be another distraction from our core reason for existing: teaching and learning.”
Do you agree with the principal, Ele (you featured his letter after all) that the Fonterra free-milk programme should be rejected because it would just be another distraction from teaching and learning?
The quicker the State exits parenting the better.
Robert @ 10:41: You haven’t; understood my answer. Giving to those who aren’t in real need is masking neglect. That’s why I support targeted help.
@10:45 – if children aren’t hungry the school has no need for the milk, the distribution and cleaning up from which could be a distraction. If the children needed the milk it would justify the extra work and time required to give it to them.
Roger – milk in schools is a Fonterra initiative not the State’s.
Ele – you haven’t understood Fonterra’s programme – milk for every child in every school.
You say, ” Giving to those who aren’t in real need is masking neglect.” – what neglect? You say they aren’t in real need, therefore they aren’t being neglected. Doesn’t make any sense at all.
You say, “If the children needed the milk it would justify the extra work and time required to give it to them.”
It must follow then, that:
“If the children needed the breakfast it would justify the extra work and time required to give it to them.”
Milk for every child in every school – only if the schools want it and some don’t.
The breakfast in schools that Labour (and possibly Greens?) proposed was a blanket approach for all low decile schools. As the principal’s letter shows not all schools need it.
Fonterra goooood!
Greens and Labour baaaaad!
I get it.