Lunches a great first step
We all love no-brainers. Teachers to be paid more? Many of us thought that was a nobrainer. The removal of militarystyle weapons from those who don’t need them? That too, for most of us, required little arm-twisting.
Ensuring our children are well fed and therefore better equipped for educational achievement? Few would argue against that idea.
Certainly that’s the case after the Government’s announcement of a $45 million trial in which children at 30 primary and intermediate schools will receive a
free lunch, every school day, from the beginning of next year.
Like the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, we agree that ‘‘hungry kids can’t learn’’. That’s backed up by plenty of research, and anyone who has tried to do anything while hungry will attest to the lack of productivity.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s announcement of one arm of her plan to combat child poverty makes sense for at least two reasons. First, it will support better education outcomes, the benefits of which are well documented and accepted. Children who do well at school are less likely to end up on the wrong side of employment, income and crime statistics. An investment now will likely save New Zealand a greater cost later on.
Second, this will give these children at least one nutritious, healthy meal a day. Many of them, either because of genuine family deprivation, overworked parents, plain ignorance or maybe even negligence, arrive at school without food or with food devoid of nutritional value.
The Government has struggled with how to change poor eating habits feeding our obesity epidemic. Free school lunches will allow it to have an impact that might otherwise seem too ‘‘nanny state’’.
But while it is not hard to see the sense in supporting these children and doing something to break the chains of poverty, neither is it unreasonable to accept the concerns of people like Bob Mccoskrie.
The Family First NZ director is supportive of the plan, but calls it a ‘‘micro response to a macro problem’’.
Forty-five million dollars is hardly micro and it will be less so as the Government extends the programme to 120 schools in 2021. At that point, as the cost rises to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars, we may ask whether one meal a day is the most effective way to spend taxpayer dollars on tackling poverty.
Overseas research suggests that a free meal a day can only feed so much change. Children from lower socio-economic areas do better, but are still often outperformed by kids in wealthier suburbs attending wealthier schools.
A free meal is fine and worthy, but factors at home remain more influential: Is family life stable or under stress? Are parents able to support homework? Is there enough money to pay for uniforms, sports and other interests?
Mccoskrie is right that providing free lunches is an easy, if not quite free, hit. Influencing how those children are fed, clothed and supported at home would be the harder change, but have more impact.
That’s a no-brainer.