This paper is focused on how child poverty affects access to education and success in achievement for New Zealand children.
Considering the current debates and concerns regarding child poverty in New Zealand, this is a very relevant question. I was surprised at what I learned in relation to how economic theory has been used to increase our unemployment rate in order to reduce inflation, and reminded again about the even more callous way beneficiaries have been treated for the last 25 years.
 |
| Source: www.childpoverty.co.nz |
“As many as 28 per cent of New Zealand children –
about 305,000 – currently live in poverty.
“When a child grows up in poverty they miss out
on things most New Zealanders take for granted. They are living in cold, damp,
over-crowded houses, they do not have warm or rain-proof clothing, their shoes
are worn, and many days they go hungry. It can mean doing badly at school, not
getting a good job, having poor health and falling into a life of crime.”
(Unicef, 2016)
New
Zealand was once a country with full employment and poverty was something that
happened in other countries. The reality
of 2016 is that poverty is a prevalent issue in our communities across New
Zealand that affects many children.
Success
at school is a strong asset for a young person to engage in further study,
employment and to participate in society. However, New Zealand has a long tail of
underachievement.
This
paper will discuss the how policy has led to child poverty in New Zealand, how
this affects access to education and achievement success for New Zealand
children, and a possible way forward.
Key
Words
Poverty,
neoliberalism, privatisation, achievement, The New Right,
A Land
of Plenty
“Every person whatever his able ability, whether be rich or
poor, whether he live in town or country, has a right as a citizen to a free
education, of the kind for which he is best fitted and to the fullest extent of
his power... That idea was deep in the public consciousness, deep in the public
aspirations, and deeper still after the war. When again, like after the
Depression, the country felt a sense of guilt for what they'd done for the
young. And nobody! nobody! nobody would challenge that.” – Clarence E. Beeby, Director of
Education 1940 – 1960 (NZIFF: The heART of the Matter, 2016).
For
nearly 50 years, 1938-1985, successive governments practiced a policy of full
employment through the public service and work schemes. The belief was everyone who was able to, had
the right to work and would have a job. The
price paid was the government had central economic control (Someone Else’s
Country, 2002).
As
the famous Beeby quote alludes, the country was deeply wounded by the
Depression and the effects of World War II, especially for to the children
growing up in the 1930s and 1940s. Those
who served in the armed forces overseas, came back to New Zealand and expected
to have a job that paid a fair wage so they could support a wife and family.
The
government set up a free public health system in 1938. They built state housing and provided
opportunities for people to own their own homes. The government had heavily invested in
infrastructure for a modern post war New Zealand. For example, ensuring a strong network
supplying electricity to the whole country.
Roads were sealed and the railways reached every city, major town,
industry and port. New Zealand was
considered a wealthy country with a high standard of living that recognised
what was needed for a modern society (In A Land of Plenty, 2002).
 |
| Official opening of the first state house in Hastings, 6 March 1938. Source: Digital NZ |
The
First Labour government had begun a programme in the late 1930s to reinvent the
education system guaranteeing universal free primary and secondary
education. “It was assumed that where
ever people lived, they would have access to a school offering the same range
of opportunities as any other school.”
(Gordon, 1997, p.66).
Education
policy was developed using best practice, the latest pedagogy and
research. Teachers were supported with a
network of advisors across the syllabus from within the Department of
Education. The health and wellbeing of
students was supported by providing each child with free milk each school day
from 1937 until 1967 (End of
free school milk, 2016).
Minimal
educational success was measured by achieving School Certificate at the end of
fifth form. If capable students would
achieve University Entrance (UE) at the end of sixth form and go to university,
or stay another year to do the Bursary exams at the end of seventh form –
although this was not commonplace until the towards the end of the 1980s and
early 1990s. To be the first in your
family to achieve a qualification at university was to be celebrated.
All
of these actions were designed to ensure families were able to achieve their
potential and would be able to contribute fully in society.
 |
| Prime Minister Robert Muldoon anouncing the 1984 snap election to waiting journalists. |
In
1984, a snap election called by Muldoon set in motion the biggest economic and
social upheaval in New Zealand’s history since the welfare state was instituted
by the First Labour government in the 1930s – and it was a Labour government
doing it again.
Economic
Reform
Prior
to the fourth Labour government being elected in 1984, many people were unhappy
with the controlled nature of the New Zealand economy and were looking
elsewhere for answers. Ganesh Nana (2013,
p.55), a New Zealand economist, quotes John Maynard Keynes: “The ideas of
economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they
are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is valued by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be
quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some
defunct economist.”
The
New Zealand economy was in dire straits in 1984 with record unemployment and
soaring double figured inflation resulting in interest rates well above
20%. Reasons for this can be explained
using elements of Keynesian economic theory, which was the dominant theory
post-Depression. The ethos behind it is
a theory of total spending in the economy called aggregate demand, and its
effects on output and inflation. Blinder
(2008) explains one of its key tenets was full employment. Another feature was spending on big projects
(the Think Big projects) and controlling wages and prices (Muldoon’s wage and
price freeze).
 |
| US President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1979-1990). |
Friedman’s
ideas on monetary policy, taxation, privatisation and deregulation under the
virtues of the free market are clearly seen in the policy settings of Thatcher
and Reagan (Wikipedia, Friedman). Hayek
argued that socialism could not be compromised with, that all forms of
collectivism could only be maintained by a central authority of some kind and
that maintaining the rule of law should be the only concern of the state. Morrell (1989) wrote, as quoted in Ball
(2003, p.38), “Hayek is particularly concerned to argue against the involvement
of the Government in the life of the citizen.”
This meant that the state had no business in services such as health,
education, or the provision of electricity, water and waste for example. According to Hayek, these should be in the
realm of private businesses, not government (Wikipedia, Hayek).
Margaret
Thatcher was part of a movement called The New Right. Their thinking encompassed the musings of
Friedman and Hayek in having their roots in the laissez-faire viewpoint, such
as leaving things to take their own course without interfering. Again, this means the government should stay
out of the free markets. The New Right
was all about the individual over the common good. This led into neoliberalism - where we sit
today - a modern politico-economic theory, with its roots in classical
liberalism from the 1800s, favouring free trade, privatisation, minimal or
reduced government expenditure on social services and minimal government
intervention with business.
This
was the end of the We Society and the launch of the Me
Society –
the individual ahead of the collective.
The
ideas of The New Right influenced New Zealand who had the ear of key Labour MPs
leading up to the 1984 election (Revolution – Part 1, 1996), including Treasury
Official Doug Andrew, who was attached to the Leader of the Opposition’s office
in mid-1983 (McKinnon, 2013).
Economic
policies of The New Right, pushed by sectors of the Treasury department, were
put into practice by the new Minister of Finance, Roger Douglas following the
1984 election. Government departments
and services became State Owned Enterprises (SOE) and restructured, often with
the goal of privatising and selling off to the private sector. This resulted in large scale redundancies and
loss of jobs for thousands of New Zealanders as former government services were
rationalised.
 |
| Prime Minister David Lange with Ministers from the fourth Labour government, Michael Bassett, Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas. |
 |
| Finance Minister Ruth Richardson |
On
top of the highest employment statistics since the Great Depression, continued
redundancies and job losses occurred from SOE restructuring and private companies
responding to the times. Depressed wage
increases and instability of work due to the Employment Contracts Act and the
loss of power by the trade unions, plus the cuts to benefits impacted local
communities extremely hard. Over
$400,000 was no longer flowing through the community of Porirua alone - the
result was less money spent in local businesses leading to further job losses
and business closures (Someone Else’s Country, 2002).
How Education
Policy Reform Contributed to the Entrenchment of Child Poverty
The
government departments which were sold off were not the only areas to face
reform. In the second term of the Fourth
Labour government, the government turned to departments with a more social
function. To pre-empt the agendas of
others, Russell Marshall, the Education Minister from 1984-1987, initiated his
own review of education before either Treasury or certain members of caucus
could moot it.
Prime
Minister David Lange was very concerned at the possibility of an education
review being taken over by people who may steer education away from its role of
the public good. “Lange sent Annette
Dixon to talk to John Wilcox, Marshall’s executive assistant to make it clear
that he did not want people appointed who would ‘take a blow torch to
education’.” (Butterworth &
Butterworth, 1998, p.66). The man
recommended by Wilcox to lead the taskforce was Brian Picot. Following the election, Lange made himself
the Minister of Education as he “…was concerned about an imminent Treasury
attack on social expenditure, and that he wanted to send a strong signal to the
electorate of his continuing commitment to social policy.” (Butterworth & Butterworth, 1998, p.68). The Picot Report was presented in April 1988,
with the plan for Tomorrow’s Schools presented in August 1988.
When
Tomorrow’s Schools was implemented in 1989, as a result of the Picot Report,
the Board of Education and its regional entities, who ran the schools, were
replaced by a small policy focused Ministry of Education (MOE). Primary and secondary schools became
self-managing entities with parents and community members elected to a Board of
Trustees (BOT) for each school. This
meant each school was now reliant on the capabilities of their community
members who were elected to their BOT to make decisions on policy, financial
and governance matters necessary to run a school. This worked well in communities with business
people and professionals, but in some communities there were a lack of people
with the skills necessary to make up effective BOTs (Gordon, 1997, Gordon,
2010).
In
1991, the National government abolished school zones, under the auspices of
public choice theory. Public Choice
Theory is a derivative of The New Right ideology, and allows each individual to
make a rational choice as the individual is the best judge for their own
interests, needs and life goals (Olssen & Matthews, 1997). This allowed parents the right to choose the schools
their children would attend (Gordon, 1997).
The
decile funding system was put in place in 1995 in an effort to fund schools
equitably. The range decided was 1-10,
with one being the lowest, due to the highest degree of socio-economic
disadvantage, and receiving significantly more funding per child than a decile
ten school. The decile ranking of a
school factors in household income, parental educational qualifications and
occupations, household crowding, income support payments and ethnicity of a
small geographic area, or ‘mesh-block’, in the school community (Harrison,
2004). There was a variety of reasons
behind this initiative, such as a decile ten family having more opportunity to
access educational learning in alternative ways compared to the opportunities
afforded by a decile one family. It was
also considered that the decile ten schools had more ability to maximise
effective fundraising measures from their community in comparison to a decile
one school.
The
impacts of this system included what is commonly called white
flight –
parents moving their children from low socio-economic schools as they believe
the decile level could be a stigma and may mean the education provided at a low
decile school wasn’t adequate (Gordon, 1997).
This changed the nature of communities as parents who could afford to
would purchase or rent homes in communities with schools with higher decile
ratings, ghettoising many areas as low socio-economic communities.
Education
reforms in the 1990s entrenched many families with limited resources into the
cycle of poverty generation after generation.
Neoliberal
Policies and the Impacts of Benefit Cuts, Mass Redundancies and Changes to
Employment Law
The Fourth Labour Government
When
the Fourth Labour government came in, they gave the job of trying to reduce
inflation to the Reserve Bank. The
theory was that once inflation went down, the other pieces would fall into
place.
The
reality was interest rates rose even higher.
This meant people had to pay even more for mortgages and they had less
disposable income. Consequently, people
did not spend as much money in the shops, which meant low stock turnover. With the products staying on the shelves,
factories did not need to produce as much, so then did not require a full
workforce and so began the redundancy process of factory and retail staff. These people often became beneficiaries.
This
graph below shows unemployment rates (blue line) increasing from 1986 from
approximately 4% to 8% in 1990. The
dotted line represents actual numbers of unemployed people (Trading Economics,
2016).
On
top of the redundancies from restructured government departments into SOEs, the
rate of unemployment soared throughout New Zealand, particularly between 1988
and 1990.
Effectively,
the Reserve Bank was using unemployment to deflate the inflation rate. To lower inflation, the unemployment rate had
to rise. If the country had full
employment, then businesses had to pay more for employees. By forcing inflation down, unemployment rises
and employers do not have to pay as much for workers (In a Land of Plenty,
2002).
As
part of the free market economy, tariffs were removed from imported goods. The tariffs were put in place to protect New
Zealand manufacturers and jobs. Without
the tariffs, the New Zealand manufacturers could not compete with the cheaper
goods being imported. More redundancies
happened as businesses shrunk or closed down completely, adding more people to
the unemployment lines.
The
numbers of unemployed rose forcing people onto benefits. With less money to spend, standards of living
began to drop, and this had impacts on local economies all around the country.
By
late 1988, the Reserve Bank and Treasury were pushing for a deregulated labour
market and the abolishment of the minimum wage.
This was a final straw for David Lange who resigned as Prime Minister in
August 1989. Labour was in turmoil with
two new Prime Ministers leading the party before the 1990 election. But these radical ideas to deregulate
employment laws found a home with the new National government, who passed the
Employment Contracts Act in 1991, leading to a huge loss of union membership,
wages decreasing and employment becoming unstable.
The National Government of the 1990s
In
1972, the Royal Commission on Social Security had reinforced the role of
welfare as “to ensure, within limitations which may be imposed by physical or
other disabilities, that everyone is able to enjoy a standard of living much
like that of the rest of the community, and thus is able to feel a sense of participation
in and belonging to the
community” (Kelsey, 1995, p.271). The
new National government of 1990 decimated this social contract in 1991.
Treasury’s
Social Policy Branch decided they needed to determine what American economists
called a minimum income standard – a poverty line. They contracted some home economy researchers
in Dunedin, who investigated four dietary budgets on which to feed a man, woman
and several children of various ages for a week. They came up with four budgets: liberal, moderate,
basic and low. At the low end, the
researchers determined it would take careful shopping and considerable time and
cooking skill to ensure a healthy diet, but that it was not healthy or
sustainable long term.
Treasury
took the lowest plan, without telling researchers, and reduced it by 20%. They called this the New Zealand Income
Adequacy Standard and used it as the recommendation for the new beneficiary
payment levels. The unemployment benefit
was cut by one quarter. Jenny Shipley,
the Minister of Social Welfare, claimed it was required to “create a gap
between work and welfare” (In a Land of Plenty, 2002). The family benefit was also stopped and
merged into a means-tested family support tax credit (Baker, 2011).
The
impact of this move was devastating across the country and plunged families
below the poverty line. If Porirua alone
had $400,000 a week slashed from its local economy, other communities around
the country also faced similar circumstances, including the flow on of
businesses closing and further job losses.
The
changes to the employment laws, continued restructuring and redundancies, plus
the impacts of less money in the local economies caused unemployment to rise to
over 11%, as can be seen in the graph below (Trading Economics, 2016). This was key to poverty gaining a foothold in
many communities who had lost significant and large, long term employers
forever.
Flessa
(2001) argues the results of schooling are determined in large part by preconditions
over which schools have no control, such as the employment status of a parent. However, schools can make a huge difference
by implementing strong teaching and learning programmes. Above that, policymakers have a huge part to
play in ensuring positive outcomes.
According
to Cremin and Nakabugo, education goes hand in hand with strengthening social
and community bonds and developing the individual person – without these three
legs, the stool of sustainable economic development will wobble about and crash
those who try to ‘sit’on it. When large,
long term employers closed down in the rural towns and communities, the legs of
their stool collapsed.
The Fifth Labour Government
When
the Fifth Labour government came into power in late 1999, they did not raise
the rate of the benefits above the poverty line. However, the Labour led government did make a
commitment in June 2002 to eliminate child poverty, a pledge not dissimilar to one
made by then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and other international leaders
(Perry, 2004).
In
the 2004 Budget, the Labour led government announced the Working For Families
(WFF) package, to commence the following 1 April, 2005. It had three basic goals: to make work pay;
to ensure income adequacy; and to support people into work (Perry, 2004). This policy was aimed at families of people
in work at the low to mid income stream. Beneficiary families were excluded. It supplemented peoples’ income and was a
tool designed to help get people off the benefit and into work, believing they
would be better off financially. Jacinda
Ardern claimed on Checkpoint on 12 October 2016 that WFF reduced child poverty
in working families by an estimated 30%.
Labour never got to finish the work towards reducing poverty in
beneficiary families before they were replaced by a National Government in late
2008 (Checkpoint, 2016).
In
2012, Jonathon Boston led a wide ranging inquiry into the causes, consequences
and possible remedies to child poverty.
Boston and Chapple (2014, p.4) define child poverty as “those children
who have insufficient income or material resources to enable them to
thrive. Consequently they are unable to
enjoy their rights, achieve their potential and participate as equal members of
society, now and in the future”. New
Zealand as become a mediocre performer compared to other rich countries in
terms of child income poverty and child hardship. Boston and Chapple argue child poverty needs
to be addressed because it is unfair to exclude poor children from full
societal participation and to do nothing will cost society more.
While
WFF enabled more children access to their rights as a citizen, this was still
to be achieved for the children in the families on a benefit below the poverty
line.
The
graph below shows WFF may have had an impact on unemployment figures, as from
2005 to 2008 the unemployment figures were close to full employment levels
(Trading Economics, 2016). Consequently
it did relieve some of the aspects of poverty some families had previously
experienced.
The Current National Government
When
the current National led government came to power at the end of 2008, they did
keep WFF, despite calling it communism by stealth at its introduction. However, they did make a number of changes
early on to the entitlements of beneficiaries, such as taking away the Training
Incentive Allowance in 2009 (Haines, 2009).
This action resulted in people unable to finish or gain qualifications
to enable them to secure stable, gainful employment which would have taken them
off the benefit, further trapping families into poverty on the benefit.
In
2013, National abolished the Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB), Unemployment and
Sickness benefits and gave them all new names and eligibility criteria (Changes to benefit categories from 15 July 2013, 2013). If a beneficiary did not meet a criterion,
such as sending their pre-schooler to fifteen hours of early childhood
education or failing a drug test, then their benefit was cut until compliance was
met. (See video below for the exchange, particulary from 2 minutes 25 seconds in).
In
the 2015 Budget, Finance Minister Bill English, announced benefits for families
would increase by $25 a week from 1 April 2016 (Kirk, 2015). While this has helped, it is claimed that
accommodation supplements were reduced to counter the extra $25 (Logie, 2016).
The graph below demonstrates the unemployment rate increasing when the
current government came to power and the Global Financial Collapse was in
progress. However, under the current Rockstar
Economy,
the unemployment rate has not gotten back to the lows the Clark government
enjoyed (Trading Economics 2016).
Jonathan
Boston (2014) argues that the scale of the issue of child poverty had to be
understood before solving it. He repeated
the findings of a taskforce he led in 2012 which said there should be a
standard measure for child poverty in New Zealand and this measure and
reporting of it should be embedded in legislation. The taskforce also recommended boosting
incomes of poor families, improving housing, access to health and other social
services and a Child Payment, reminiscent of the Family Benefit introduced by
the First Labour government.
However, Prime Minister John Key’s refusal to set a definitive measure
of child poverty (Moir, 2016) demonstrates the entrenchment of child poverty
and its consequences in New Zealand society.
Even when challenged by the new Children’s Commissioner, Judge Andrew
Becroft, to set a definitive measure of child poverty along with a target of reduction
(The Nation, 2016) and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) calling for more
action on child poverty (John Key
hits back at UN report on child poverty in NZ, 2016), John Key remains defiant that his government
is failing the children of New Zealand below the poverty line.
Criticism of Government Policy and Inaction on Child Poverty and its
Consequences
Prior
to the 2011 election, Bryan Bruce’s documentary Inside
New Zealand: Child Poverty was made and screened on TV3.
Bruce visited schools, parents and health professionals to learn how
child poverty manifests. He uncovered
the number of school children who needed a charity to feed them at school. He visited homes with mould growing on the
walls or water running down them, impossible to heat. Families often slept all in one room together
due to cold, damp homes.
Sose
Annandale, the principal of Russell School in Porirua, said she could not
expect children to achieve in Literacy and Numeracy if they had not been fed at
school (Inside New Zealand, 2011). This
view backs up the stand of the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) in
(2012) that children were missing out on educational opportunities or even
missing school due to their level of poverty.
The
public health nurse said she calls once a week at Russell School and was so
busy treating health conditions she did not get time for preventative action
(Inside New Zealand, 2011). Chronic and
acute skin conditions, respiratory and throat infections were rife, along with
rheumatic fever in low income families.
Rheumatic fever a direct consequence of poor housing and overcrowding. “Poor housing affects children’s ability to learn at
school and study at home through many mechanisms – through recurrent or chronic
illness, stress, and overcrowded conditions making study and concentration
difficult. As a result they may have lower educational attainment, and greater
likelihood of unemployment later in life, and poverty.” (Child Poverty Action Group, 2015, p.5).
Pirrie
and Hockings (2012) discuss the importance of strong leadership and vision
within a school to combat the effects of child poverty and engaging parents to
be active in their children’s learning journeys. Leaders like Annandale have to make decisive
and bold moves to ensure students in their school have the best opportunity to
succeed despite poverty. By including
parents and community members in the food in schools, she has engaged parents
in ensuring the children are ready to learn.
Popular
discourse is that the government has abandoned its social contract to help
those most in need and are leaving it up to the non-government organisations
(NGOs) to meet the shortfall in schools and the wider community. Such NGOs include church and community
foodbanks and those who provide meals to the homeless; budgeting services’
women’s refuge; programmes like KidsCan, Milk in Schools, the breakfast
programmes and Eat My Lunch for food in schools or basics such as shoes and a
raincoat; and the Salvation Army for emergency shelter and a variety of other
services.
 |
| Bryan Bruce from his documentary Mind the Gap |
Continued
economic deprivation of New Zealand’s most vulnerable has caused, what John Key
termed leading up to the 2008 election campaign, a growing underclass (Key,
2008). Nana (2013, pp.60-61) summarised
how policy since the 1990s has impacted on families when he wrote “…when people
are deprived of the opportunity to achieve their full potential, we are
ensuring that these members of society are not fully utilised”.
In
2015, the New Zealand Herald did a series on education, specifically looking
into the effects of poverty on children’s education. In Johnston’s article, Prof John O’Neill
pointed out a student’s home background is a huge factor in student
achievement. A poor income often results
in a lack of books in the home, along with transience, truancy and family
dysfunction leading to the cause of 80% of under achievement. Education Minister Hekia Parata countered
that socio-economic factors account for only 18% and cites research about
teacher quality, expectations, school leadership and relationships having a
higher impact. She calls it deficit
thinking, and this was echoed by former Secretary of Education, Lesley
Longstone (Clark, 2013), who stated in a radio interview she did not consider
poverty to be the reason for underachievement.
But
to say poverty in not an excuse is merely an excuse for ignoring poverty. Snook and O’Neill (2012) say it would be
neglectful not to acknowledge the impact of child poverty on students and their
learning. They also wrote that schools
could not counter the effects of poverty on their own, focusing on improvements
in one part of poverty will not negate poverty in general to allow students to
achieve to their potential. Clark (2013)
also argues that child poverty is a leading factor that can not be ignored and
must be dealt with to help children achieve their potential.
Constructive
Solutions to New Zealand’s Child Poverty Issues
Machin
and McNally (2006) stated policies designed to alleviate child poverty need to
be better integrated with education policies if child poverty is to be
eliminated. Repeated governments have
failed to place children at the centre of policy design and implementation,
leading to an entrenchment of poverty in New Zealand society inhibiting children
from reaching their full potential.
The
Child Poverty Action Group produced a series of videos in 2014 to discuss
solutions to child poverty. In one of
these videos, Dr Nicky Turner, an Auckland University GP, advocated for a range
of integrated policies to improve outcomes for children currently in
poverty. These policies included
universal health and dental care access for children as well as prescription
glasses, warm healthy homes and an adequate income. She claims once we have this right we can
look to education as a means to reduce poverty.
 |
| From www.childpoverty.co.nz |
Communities
and schools have been finding their own solutions. Some schools have developed gardens to support
their own food in schools programme, such as Rhode Street School in
Hamilton. Some have established a
community garden to supply fresh vegetables to their school families and the
community, such as Unity Gardens at Epuni School. Community gardens have been established by
members of communities up and down the country to supplement fresh vegetables
for those who struggle.
Haig
(2014) made a case for schools to be the community hub, the provider of a range
of services that would benefit the community the school serves, such has access
to health and social agencies, adult education, parenting programmes or
whatever was deemed necessary for the benefit of the community. Victory School in Nelson is held up as an
example of a school developing its own community hub based on the needs
identified by their community. The Green
Party had a similar policy to the one Haig proposes in their 2014 Election
Manifesto and held Victory School up as an example of what is possible (New
Zealand Green Party, 2014).
Every Child Counts was a conference in Wellington
in 2012. Dr Airini spoke about the $4-5
billion still to be tapped into the New Zealand economy if Pasifika incomes
were to match non-Pasifika incomes. She
had four key elements to her plan to enable this to happen: plan for impact; an Every Child Counts
Research and Development network; make progress in Auckland; and zoom in and
scale up what works.
The
New Zealand Principal’s Federation focused on how to fix the tail of under
achievement from a school’s perspective.
It simply is to properly fund existing successful programmes such as
Reading Recovery, First Chance, Ka Hikitia and Positive Behaviour for Learning
(PB4L) and ensure access to more students.
This would require extra resourcing for a lot of schools, as many of
these programmes are currently outside of their current funding parameters.
But
initiatives from schools, the community and businesses will not solve New
Zealand’s child poverty problem if the government will not recognise their role
in forming and implementing policies to provide income adequacy, provision of
universal health care and a truly free compulsory education system.
Final
Thoughts
New
Zealand has the potential to solve its issues with child poverty and
consequently improve the outcomes for students and their ability to
achieve. The drivers of poverty are
clear: a lack of income, a lack of stability in employment, a low wage
economy. Combine these, and there is a
cycle which entraps people.
The
symptoms of poverty are clear: acute and chronic health conditions, poor
quality housing, low attainment of education success, a greater potential to be
either a victim or a perpetrator of crime (or both), increased risk of mental
health issues, increased chance of abuse.
 |
| From www.childpoverty.co.nz |
Until
New Zealand implements a full suite of policies to target the root causes and
symptoms of child poverty, outcomes in student achievement will not be improved
or maximised. When a child starts from a
deficit due to the impacts of poverty, schools spend most of their time, effort
and money into plugging the gaps left gaping by the deficit. To ignore that deficit is to ignore the needs
and wellbeing of the child.
But
the biggest deficit is in the government’s social contract with the
nation. Until it attends to that deficit
by implementing the previously mentioned solutions for child poverty, New
Zealand will continue to have students from the most deprived families who will
struggle to succeed as learners or productive and active members of society.
References:
Baker, M. (2011, May 5). Te Ara Encyclopedia of New
Zealand. Retrieved October 17, 2016, from http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/family-welfare/page-4
Baker, M. (2011, May 5). Te Ara Encyclopedia of New
Zealand. Retrieved October 17, 2016, from http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/family-welfare/page-6
Boston, J. (2014). Child Poverty in New Zealand: Why it matters and
how it can be reduced. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 46(9),
952-988.
Boston, J., & Chapple, S. (2014). Child poverty in New Zealand (1st
ed.). Wellington, New Zealand: Bridget Williams Books.
Changes to benefit categories from 15 July 2013 -
Ministry ... (2013). Retrieved October 19, 2016, from http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/benefit/benefit-factsheet-changes-2013.html
Checkpoint with John Campbell. (2016, October 12).
Labour appalled by Judith Collins comments on child poverty. Retrieved October
12, 2016, from http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/201819719/labour-appalled-by-judith-collins-comments-on-child-poverty
Child Poverty in New Zealand. (2016, June).
Retrieved September 18, 2016, from
https://www.unicef.org.nz/learn/our-work-in-new-zealand/Child-Poverty-in-New-Zealand
Child Poverty Action Group. (2016). Child Poverty
Action Group. Retrieved September 9, 2016, from http://www.cpag.org.nz/
Child Poverty Action Group. (2014). Child Poverty
in Aotearoa 2014 Episode 1: The Big Picture. Retrieved September 18, 2016, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t_HDffwU9A
Child Poverty Action Group. (2015, September 23). FAQ
Housing and Affordable Housing.
Retrieved October 20, 2016 from http://www.cpag.org.nz/assets/HousingCampaign/150923HousingCampaignFAQ.pdf
Clark, J. (2013, January). Education Review
explores the big issues in New Zealand education, from early childhood through
to tertiary education. Retrieved September 18, 2016, from
http://www.educationreview.co.nz/magazine/january-2013/inequality-of-school-achievement-why-the-events-of-2012-will-not-fix-the-problem/#.V99eh5h97IU
Cremin, P., & Nakabugo, M. G. (2012).
Education, development and poverty reduction: A literature critique. International
Journal of Educational Development, 32(4), 499-506.
doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.02.015 Retrieved September 9, 2016, https://elearn.waikato.ac.nz/mod/resource/view.php?id=551332
End of free school milk | NZHistory, New Zealand
history ... (2016, January 13). Retrieved October 20, 2016, from http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/end-of-free-school-milk
Every Child Counts. (2012). Dr Airini speaks at
TePapa: Every Child Counts. Retrieved September 18, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA8jrLkgB8E
Flessa, J. (2007).
Poverty and education: Towards effective action: A review of the literature. Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education: University of Toronto. Retrieved
September 9, 2016, from http://cus.oise.utoronto.ca/UserFiles/File/Poverty%20lit%20review%20(J_%20Flessa%20-%2010_2007).pdf
Gordon, L. (1997). ‘Tomorrow’s Schools’ Today:
School Choice and the Education Quassi-Market. In Olssen, M., & Matthews,
K. M. (Eds.). Education policy in New Zealand: The 1990s and beyond. (pp.
65-82. Palmerston North, N.Z.: Dunmore
Press.
Gordon, L. (2010). School Governance. In Thrupp,
M., & Irwin, R. (Eds.). Another decade of New Zealand education policy:
Where to now? (pp. 35-46) Hamilton, N.Z.: Wilf Malcolm Institute of
Educational Research (WMIER), Faculty of Education, The University of Waikato.
Haines, L. (2009, July 19). Govt axe destroys
dreams. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved October 18, 2016, from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10585365
Haig, T. (2014).
Equipping Schools to Fight Poverty: A community hub approach. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(9), 1018-1035.
Harrison, M. (2004). Education matters:
Government, markets and New Zealand schools. Wellington: Education Forum.
John Key hits back at UN report on child poverty in
NZ. (2016, October 10). Retrieved October 12, 2016, from http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/john-key-hits-back-at-un-report-on-child-poverty-in-nz-2016101007
Johnson, K. (2015, November 4). Education
investigation: The great divide. Retrieved September 17, 2016, from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1
Kelsey, J. (1995). The New Zealand experiment: A
world model for structural adjustment? (1997 ed.). Auckland, N.Z.: Auckland
University Press.
Key, J. (2008, January 30). John Key: State of the
Nation speech. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved October 19, 2016, from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10489424
Kirk, S. (2015, May 21). Recommended by Budget
2015: Benefits rise in bid to tackle child poverty. Stuff. Retrieved
October 19, 2016, from http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/68742199/budget-2015-benefits-rise-in-bid-to-tackle-child-poverty
Logie, J. (2016, April 2). GREENS: Half of all
beneficiary families won't get full ... Retrieved October 19, 2016, from http://www.radiolive.co.nz/GREENS-Half-of-all-beneficiary-families-wont-get-full-25-increase/tabid/615/articleID/117656/Default.aspx
Machin, S., & McNally, S. (2006). Education and child poverty.
York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation (http://www. jrf. org.
uk/publications/education-and-child-povertyliterature-review). Retrieved September 9, 2016, from http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/9781859354773.pdf
Moir, J. (2016, October 3). Government won't commit
to a poverty target because it's too 'difficult' - John Key. Stuff.
Retrieved October 18, 2016, from http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/84893766/government-wont-commit-to-a-poverty-target-because-its-too-difficult--john-key
Nana, G. (2013). The Cost of Inequality. In Rashbrooke,
M. (Ed.). Inequality: A New Zealand crisis. (pp. 55-67). Wellington, New
Zealand: Bridget Williams Books
New Zealand
Green Party. (2014). Schools at the Heart: Policy document. Retrieved October
4, 2016, from https://home.greens.org.nz/schoolsattheheart
NZEI. (2012, December 10). Media Release:
Increasing child poverty leading cause of student underachievement in NZ.
Retrieved September 18, 2016, from http://www.nzei.org.nz/NZEI/Media/Releases/2012/12/Increasing_child_poverty_leading_cause_of_student_underachievement_in_NZ_.aspx#.V99q6Jh97IU
NZIFF: The heART of the Matter. (2016). Retrieved
August 28, 2016, from http://www.nziff.co.nz/2016/auckland/the-heart-of-the-matter/
NZ On Screen. (2002). In a Land of Plenty | Film |
NZ On Screen. Retrieved September 17, 2016, from https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/in-a-land-of-plenty-2002
NZ On Screen. (1996). Revolution (part one) -
Fortress New Zealand | Television | NZ On Screen. Retrieved October 18, 2016,
from https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/revolution-1-fortress-new-zealand-2009
NZ On Screen. (1996). Someone Else's Country | Film
| NZ On Screen. Retrieved September 16, 2016, from https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/someone-elses-country-1996
O'Brien, M., Dr. (2012, March). Submissions • Child
Poverty Action Group. Retrieved September 17, 2016, from http://www.cpag.org.nz/resources-publications/submissions/
Submission: Inquiry into the determinants of wellbeing
for Maori children
Olssen, M., & Matthews, K. M. (1997). Education
policy in New Zealand: The 1990s and beyond. Palmerston North, N.Z.:
Dunmore Press.
Our children, our choice: Priorities for policy.
(2014, July). Retrieved September 18, 2016, from
http://www.cpag.org.nz/assets/Publications/1410063-0 Our Children Our Choice
2014.pdf
Perry, B. (2004). Working for Families:
The impact on child poverty. Social
Policy Journal of New Zealand, 19-54.
Pirrie, A., & Hockings, E. (2012). Poverty, educational
attainment and achievement in Scotland: a critical review of the literature. Retrieved September 9, 2016, from http://www.sccyp.org.uk/downloads/Adult%20Reports/Poverty_educational_attainment_and_achievement.pdf
Redsky. (2011). Inside Child Poverty. Retrieved
September 18, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AnC8yMph78
Redsky. (2013). Mind The Gap. Retrieved September
15, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__2EdGFdgTA
Snook,
I. and O'Neill, J. (2010). Social Class and Educational Achievement: Beyond
Ideology [online]. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 45,
No. 2, 2010: 3-18. Availability:<http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/documentSummary;dn=621745966557638;res=IELHSS>ISSN:
0028-8276. [cited 11 Oct 16].
Te Ara. (2012,
June 20). Muldoon announces a wage and prize freeze, 1982. Retrieved October 3,
2016, from http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/video/33455/muldoon-announces-a-wage-and-prize-freeze-1982
The Nation. (2016, October 1). The Nation: Judge
Andrew Becroft | Scoop News. Retrieved October 12, 2016, from http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1610/S00003/the-nation-judge-andrew-becroft.htm
Trading Economics. (2016). New Zealand Unemployment
Rate | 1985-2016 | Data | Chart | Calendar. (2016). Retrieved October 18, 2016,
from http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/unemployment-rate
Trevett, C., & Shuttleworth, K. (2012, August
17). Bennett slammed over child poverty claim. Otago Daily Times.
Retrieved October 19, 2016, from https://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/bennett-slammed-over-child-poverty-claim
What to do about New Zealand’s underachieving
children. (n.d.). Retrieved September 18, 2016, from http://www.nzpf.ac.nz/what-to-do-about-new-zealandrsquos-underachieving-children.html
A pretty thorough summary of how we ended up here. Certainly employment in meaningful jobs is the critical underlying factor.
ReplyDeleteHekia Parata's famous '18%' effect on accademic outcomes was actually a misquote (and she knew it) from a document (PISA?) that was referring to to in school factors. That doc later included and overall effect size more in line with the 70-80% figure identified by other research.
It makes me sick to think that unemployment is being used to control inflation.