References

Andykenworthy, (2013). Child poverty in New Zealand. Retrieved from

http://andykenworthy.com/?p=748

Australian Associated Press Pty Limited (AAP), (2012).  NZ: New Zealand urged to act on           child poverty, 28-08 1515. Retrieved from

http://library.eit.ac.nz:2055/docview/1035571364/13DBA866729165F363/3?accountid=39646#center

Barlow, C. (1991). Tikanga Whakaaro: Hey concepts in Māori culture. Melbourne, Australia:          Oxford University Press.

Berk, L. E. (2010).Development through the lifespan (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Brodie, S., & Wood, B. (1998). Inequalities and development. Auckland, New Zealand: Pearson Education.

Bunce, A. (2011). Policy project: Alleviating child poverty in New Zealand. Retrieved from
http://policyprojects.ac.nz/annelisebunce/author/annelisebunce/

Byrns, R. (2011). Poverty: Absolute and relative. Retrieved from
http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/byrns_web/Economicae/Essays/Poverty_RelAbs.htm

Chapman, K., & Levy, D. (2011) Labour's $2.6b plan to tackle child poverty. Retrieved from
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/policies/5923639/Labours-2-6b-plan-to-ackle-child-poverty

Children’s Commissioner, (2008).  Child poverty in New Zealand. Retrieved from
http://www.occ.org.nz/home/childpoverty/the_report

Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), (1994).  Retrieved from
http://www.cpag.org.nz/about-us/

Cullen, J. (2008). Outcomes of early childhood education: Do we know, can we tell, and does it matter? Paper prepared for NZAERE Annual Conference, Palmerston North: New Zealand.

Didsbury, P. (2012). The New Zealand herald: Dr says he sees effects of poverty on kids every day. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10784293

Every Child Counts, (2011).  He Ara Hou: The pathway forward.  Retrieved from
http://www.everychildcounts.org.nz/_w/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/He-Ara-Hou-Report-20112.pdf

GreatStart100%, (n.d). Qualified teachers in early childhood centres: do we need them? Retrieved from http://issues.co.nz/greatstart100/Qualified+teachers+in+early+childhood+centres%3A+do+we+need+them%3F

Greens, (n.d). Every child matters. Retrieved from
http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/childrens-policy-every-child-matters

Grocott, M. (2012). Call for action to fight child poverty. Retrieved from
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/7992886/Call-for-action-to-fight-child-poverty

Kesting, S., & Fargher, S. (2008).  The effect of early childhood education and care          (ECE) costs on the labour force participation of parents in New Zealand.      Retrieved from URL= http://search.proquest.com/docview/233250480?accountid=39646

Krapp, K. (2005). Psychologists and their theories for students. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson Gale.

Medical News Today, (2010). What is rheumatic fever? What causes rheumatic fever? Retrieved from http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/176648.php

Middlemore Foundation, (2013).  Child poverty programme.  Retrieved from
http://www.middlemorefoundation.org.nz/services/school-clinics

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki: He Whāriki mātauranga mo ngā Mokopuna o Aotearoa/Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

Ministry of Social Development, (2006). Towards coherent care and education support policies for New Zealand families. Retrieved from        
http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj28/28-towards-coherent-care-and-education-support-policies-for-new-zealand-families-p46-76.html#Introduction2

OECD, (2009). Doing better for children report. Retrieved from             http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/42/43589854.pdf

Orange, C. (2004). An illustrated history of the Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington, New Zealand: Bridget Williams Book Ltd.

Pere, R. (1982).  Ako: Concepts and learning in the Māori tradition. Wellington, New Zealand: Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board.

Richardson, D. (2009). New Zealand country highlights: Doing better for children. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/42/43589854.pdf

Robertson, G. (2009). Kiwis care about child poverty. Retrieved from
http://blog.labour.org.nz/2009/08/10/kiwis-care-about-child-poverty/

Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim. NY, New York: Pantheon Books.

Scoop, (2008). Ministry increases funding for under sixes schemes. Retrieved from
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0808/S00117.htm

Scoop, (2012). Key against all measures to end child poverty. Retrieved from
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1209/S00111/key-against-all-measures-to-end-child-poverty.htm

St John, S.,& Wynd, D. (eds.). (2008). Left behind: How social & income equalities damage New Zealand children. Auckland, New Zealand: CPAG.

Sustainable BusinessNZ, (2012).  Tackling child poverty in New Zealand. Retrieved from             http://www.sbc.org.nz/news/archive/sustainable-businessnz/tackling-child-poverty-in-nz

Tetaurawhiri, (n.d). Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori. Retrieved from
http://www.tetaurawhiri.govt.nz/english/index.shtml

Tumeke, (2011). Child poverty in New Zealand. Retrieved from
http://www.tumeke.blogspot.co.nz/2011/08/child-poverty-in-new-zealand.html

Unicef, (2005). Childhood under threat. Retrieved from
http://www.unicef.org/sowc/archive/ENGLISH/The%20State%20of%20the%20World%27s%20Children%202005.pdf

Whitireia New Zealand, (2012). Living in New Zealand. Retrieved from
http://www.whitireia.ac.nz/international/Pages/LivinginNewZealand.aspx

Work and Income, (n.d). A–Z Benefits. Retrieved from
http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/a-z-benefits/

 

 

 

 

Early Childhood, Pedagogy, Implications and Poverty

 

‘An ageing society that does not care for its young has a death wish’ Professor Dame Anne Salmond

 

Poverty is an on-going cycle that is very hard to break, especially for children who consider living in poverty ‘the norm’.  Children living in these conditions find it difficult to believe that it can ever improve because they know nothing else (Brodie & Wood, 1998).  Local and international studies have shown that quality early childhood education (ECE)will help children to succeed in their future in various ways but especially in school (St John & Wynd, 2008; Nash, 1993).  Children who attend ECE centres are likely to lessen the effects of future poverty as ECE instils developmental foundations that potentially increase children’s learning outcomes and improve their chances of better employment in future (OECD, 2009).

 

Government funding for children in low income families to attend ECE centres are still being implemented, however, their policies undervalue and under appreciate the teachers in this sector and devalue the role they play in bringing children and families out of poverty.  The Strategic Plan for Early Childhood Education http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj28/28-towards-coherent-care-and-education-support-policies-for-new-zealand-families-p46-76.html#AconciseoverviewofPolicyObjectivesOutcomesandSupportSystemsinOECDCountries4%20 instigated by the Labour-led government set out to get 100% fully registered teachers in all ECE facilities by 2012 (Ministry of Social Development, 2006).  But when the government changed so did the policy.  The 100% qualified policy is now cut to 80% qualified with further cuts to funding for training in professional development, ultimately increasing the burden on teachers and their on-going training (GreatStart100%, n.d).  This change in policy can have repercussions on children’s learning and development now and in their future. This does not mean unqualified staff should be undermined or devalued with what they bring into centres; however, it outlines gaps in their knowledge and understanding of how their personal values, beliefs and ideas can impact on children’s learning and development whose backgrounds and perspectives differ from their own (GreatStart100%, n.d). 
Because the government ensures that children’s cultural capital is not taken into account; this has resulted in negative outcomes, the main one being underachieving in education.  The added pressure on qualified staff to make sure this does not happen can also lead to valuable time being taken from children’s learning (Ministry of Social Development, 2006).  It is important that children’s diversity and background from which they come are supported and positive outcomes are valued within the centre environment. This enables them to learn and develop within their own unique context and pace (Ministry of Social Development, 2006).  This approach is essential in bridging the gap between low and high income earners. Lessening the impact of poverty through education will not only increase the possible outcomes for children and their families, but will also minimalize the impact poverty has on the societies in which they come from (Ministry of Social Development, 2006).  Click the following ProQuest website for an in-depth read on the government, ECE funding, ECE teachers, parents working and loads more. http://library.eit.ac.nz:2055/docview/233250480/13DBAE51C68503B77B8/1?accountid=39646

A pedagogical implication that an early childhood teacher can use within the centre environment is Bronfenbrenner's ‘ecological theory’ outlined in Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education,1996). Poverty is a social issue embedded in a child's microsystem through to their chronosystem (Berk, 2010). If a child's home life is affected by poverty, then the teacher's pedagogical practice will need to change in order to support these vulnerable needs of the children accordingly (Berk, 2010).  The ‘ecological theory’ provides a conceptual framework that recognises that social issues cannot be looked at in isolation outside of global, sociocultural, political and personal influences (Berk, 2010).  A child’s development and learning cannot commence without taking into consideration the impact of all these factors within a wider social/political context, and awareness that all development takes place through social/cultural activities (Berk, 2010).  If a child’s understanding of their world is steeped in their cultural context and social interactions, as stated within the Early Childhood Curriculum Te Whāriki, then teaching, learning and children’s development is embedded in the context of social relationships, educational government policies and politics (Ministry of Education, 1996).

 

Thank you so much for following my blog on 'New Zealand Child Poverty'.  I have learnt so much throughout my poverty blog journey.  It has opened my eyes to the hardship a lot of families live in and the many factors they have to deal with on a daily bases in order to survive.  At the end of the day our children are the Taonga and future of Aotearoa and therefore should be treated them as such.  I believe in order for that to be achieved legislation change is needed and the government need to step-up and devise a 5-10 year plan that actively fights against child poverty.    

…A Māori Perspective on Poverty…

 

Before colonisation Māori were the kaitiaki (guardian) for New Zealand.  Māori society worked together for the betterment of the people, they had a system that worked really well and functioned within an equitable gender approach to produce a socially agreed outcome (Orange, 2004).  Māori ideology was put in place for the wellbeing of whānau, hapū and iwi (Barlow, 1991; Orange, 2004).  Māori society worked together with no formal policy or political body however; there was a structure within the tribe that kept lore and order. This kept their values and beliefs in tact (tapū, ngā tikanga and kawa) (Barlow, 1991; Orange, 2004; Pere, 1982).  Māori continued to live a wealthy life that was holistic in its approach and helped them live in their environment (Orange, 2004).

…However…

 

Within the last month I have had the privilege of meeting Houpeke Piripi Senior who is the Rangatira for the NgatiWai people.  The motu (area) covers Cape Brett to the Barrier.  During my time with him he was able to share with me through esoteric knowledge how poverty started for his people.  He said …

“Before colonisation Māori did not experience poverty; their culture was intact and thriving.  They lived their traditional ways and everyone worked together and shared everything amongst the tribe.  This was known as the ‘Law of Consecration’.  When the British arrived and the treaty was signed in 1840, Māori lost their independence, they were taken from their rural community and urbanised into society.  All of a sudden Māori were faced with things they had never experienced before, like; rent to pay, food to buy and they had to compete with Pakeha for jobs.  This was totally alien for Māori and was the beginning of a downhill spiral for them.  Schooling was taught in English so from the start Māori were disadvantage. They then started experiencing overcrowding, foreign diseases, lacked nutritious food and excessively used alcohol and tobacco (that the British used to trade with Māori .  Māori found it difficult to provide the basic essentials for their children and families and this was the start of poverty” (Personal communication, 16 March, 2013).

I found this amazing and relevant, as in society today a very high percentage of Māori children (39% of the 270,000) are living in overcrowded houses, lacking in education, experiencing bad health and go without nourishing food (Children’s Commissioner, 2008). 

This  has made me wonder whether poverty has specifically affected Māori due to their language being taken away from them in school in the 1850’s, being urbanised in the 1940’s and losing their identity in the 1950's (through being 'pepper-potted' to learn the English ways) (Tetaurawhiri, n.d).  Check out this website, it shows an in-depth timeline of Māori Language and Education - http://www.tetaurawhiri.govt.nz/english/issues_e/hist/index.shtml

 
I believe that Māori child poverty is a consequence of colonisation.  I have also contemplated whether poverty of any extent would have occurred in New Zealand if colonisation did not happen or would government influences from overseas slowly creep in and have an effect upon the way Māori were living?

“We think sometimes that poverty is only being hungry, naked and homeless.  The poverty of being unwanted, unloved and uncared for is the greatest poverty.  We must start in our own homes to remedy this kind of poverty” Mother Teresa of Calcutta


 So where is New Zealand on the OECD report?

According to Gammage (as cited in Cullen, 2008) ten percent of the world’s children are born into a rich OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) country and will have the opportunity to study up to and beyond university level, while the remaining 90 percent are born into poverty.  Education for these under priviledge children will be sporadic, tenuous, serendipitous or non-existent.

New Zealand is one of five countries with the most marked increase in the income gap between rich and poor between the mid-1980s and mid-2000s. OECD report provides further compelling impetus for a stronger focus on social disadvantage and what this might mean for children’s life chances (Cullen, 2008).

New Zealand is currently ranked 28th out of 30 in the OECD in the 'Every Child Counts' report (Tumeke, 2011).  Richardson (2009) declares that New Zealand needs to take a stronger policy focus on child poverty, especially during the early years when it is easier to make a long-term difference. New Zealand’s government spending on children is considerably less than the OECD average. The biggest shortfall is for spending on young children, New Zealand spends $17,500 per child, which is less than half the OECD average (Richardson, 2009; Tumeke, 2011).

Material conditions for New Zealand children are relatively poor. Average family incomes are low by OECD standards, and child poverty rates are high (Richardson, 2009).  The stark reality is that poor outcomes for children are costing New Zealand $NZ6 billion per year in areas such as health, welfare services, crime and justice" (Tumeke, 2011).

 

The Government Perspective on Poverty

 

New Zealand is a democratic country, where freedom of speech, gender equality, voting and  religious belief is guaranteed in law (Whitireia New Zealand, 2012).  However, depending on who is in government will determine and influence the running of the country.  Below are some policies from the National, Labour, ACT and Green party addressing child poverty.       

National is currently in government and their track record on child poverty is a disgrace. Under their watch, poverty has grown and their measures show inequality. National believe in minimizing government intervention and their policies are increasing hardship (Scoop, 2012). Click the following link to read a transcript about how Prime Minister John Key addresses child poverty in parliament.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/a/c/6/50HansQ_20121211_00000001-1-Child-Poverty-Government-Actions-to-Address.htm

ACT works in alliance with National and support their policies.  For an in-depth read on ACT policy around child poverty click the link below.

http://www.act.org.nz/posts/solution-to-child-poverty-lies-with-government-doing-less

Labour has taken a $2.6 billion pledge to "lift children out of poverty by extending Working for Families, Paid Parental Leave,…reversing early childhood education cuts, free 24-hour healthcare for children under six and free dental care for pregnant women" (Chapman & Levy, 2011).  This would lift 150,000 children out of poverty over a six year period.  For a more in-depth read click the following link.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/policies/5923639/Labours-2-6b-plan-to-tackle-child-poverty

Greens have the most comprehensive social policy for eliminating child poverty. Within a 6 year time frame they want to give every child the best possible start in life, ensuring parents can spend time with their children, allowing children to grow up in a safe, nurturing, and non-violent environment, improve childhood health, and provide quality education and so much more (Greens, n.d).  To read the full ‘Children’s Policy’ report, click the following attachment.

http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/childrens2011.pdf

Personally I think we have the wrong government in parliament if we ever want to see any improvements in lifting child poverty here in New Zealand.  What do you think?

‘There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.’ - Nelson Mandela.

 

“In 2010, 25,000 children were admitted to hospital with preventable diseases” and illnesses (SustainableBusinessNZ, 2012).  These diseases and illnesses include…

Rheumatic Fever in children

·      Rheumatic fever – “An inflammatory disease that may develop as a complication of a streptococcus infection, such as strep throat or scarlet fever” (Medical News Today, 2010).  Dr Didsbury states that "now and again we see rheumatic fever, which for most developed countries is never heard of. It's almost an embarrassment that we see it." (Didsbury, 2012). 

·        Impetigo (School Sores) – Starts as “pimples and sometimes develops into big oozing bubbles which grow bigger every day” (Didsbury, 2012). 

·        Cellulitis - A “skin infection that can spread under the skin and can be very severe and require hospital admissions"(Didsbury, 2012). 

·        Bronchiolitis (Respiratory Illness) - A wheezy condition (Didsbury, 2012).  

It was predominantly poverty stricken children who encounter one, if not all of these diseases and illnesses.  They were likely to be caused through extended families living under one roof (one way to cut costs) and houses being cold, damp and mouldy.  When the colder months start to approach families living under or on the poverty line are unable or struggling to afford heat, so to keep warm it is common for everyone to sleep in one room.  This is how the illnesses and diseases are transmitted, “it’s spread person to person by germs” (Didsbury, 2012).  Anyone who is affected will need medical attention.

 

So what is the GOVERNMENT doing about it?

 

In 2006 the government put in place a ‘very low-cost access’ funding scheme (Scoop, 2008).  As of 1 July 2008, over 300 general practices/health centres around New Zealand had joined, allowing children between 6 – 17 years of age to see a doctor for $11.50 and over 500 general practices/health centres have joined the free for under 6 year olds scheme (Scoop, 2008).  Even with this in place families with children over the age of six have to decide on going to the doctors or having no food for dinner and situations like this can “put some families off” (Didsbury, 2012). 

On top of the ‘very low-cost access’ funding scheme, the New Zealand government have put numerous initiatives in place to alleviate child poverty.  Since 1980 Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) have offered many services to support families in need (Bunce, 2011).

Visit http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/individuals/a-z-benefits/ to see the whole ‘A-Z’ list of benefits WINZ have to offer (Work and Income, n.d).

When Labour was in government they initiated Working for Families (WFF) package through Inland Revenue Department (IRD).  This was introduced in 2003 and implemented in 2005.  The specific purpose of this package was to provide incentives to work and reduce the rate of child poverty in New Zealand (Bunce, 2011).  The WFF package consists of:

·        Family Tax Credit (FTC) - Child-related supplement that is not tied to work requirements

·        Parental Tax Credit (PTC) - Weekly payment of NZ$150 for eight weeks for a new child.

·        Marginal Family Tax Credit (MFTC).

·        In Work Tax Credit (IWTC).

To be eligible for the MFTC and the IWTC a work requirement must be fulfilled of 20 hours for a single-parent and 30 hours for a couple (Bunce, 2011).  There is also free dental care to children up to the age of 18 and all housing NZ homes are or are in the process of getting insulated. 

 

So, with all the government initiatives put in place with the overall outcome of alleviating child poverty, are they working?

 

NO!!!!!

 

Since the implementation of the WFF package in 2005 there has been “NO marked reduction in child poverty with the rate remaining at 22 percent from 2007-2011” (Bunce, 2010, p. 6).  It also discriminates against children in families dependent on benefits, are difficult for families to work out eligibility; it complicates the tax system and does not adjust for inflation (Bunce, 2010).

Yes, WINZ do provide many benefits/allowances to support families in need. However, WINZ do not give enough money to survive on, on a weekly basis, hence the reason poverty is such an epidemic here in NZ (Andykenworthy, 2013). 

…However…

The Children's Commissioner's expert advisory group have proposed  that government and non-government organisations work in alliance with the food-in-schools programme, implement "warrant of fitness for rental homes,” create “a new "child payment" to support families needing extra help, along with changes to the child support system” and “introduce a new Children’s Act” (Australian Associated Press Pty, 2012).  The Children's Commissioner's expert advisory group think that by implementing these new changes “poverty will reduce by at least 30 per cent by 2022” (Australian Associated Press Pty, 2012).  Click below to read article. 

http://library.eit.ac.nz:2055/docview/1035571364/13DBA866729165F363/3?accountid=39646#center

Personally I think that the New Zealand government needs to review and simplify its benefit system and raise the amount of money given to families so poverty can start to decrease.  I think it is brilliant that the 'Children's Commissioner's' expert advisory group have recognise the need to address and make recommendations on the issue of poverty, however, in order for the recommendations to be achieved it needs to be implemented.  So for now the government looks at the ‘poverty recommendations’ as just words or a subject to bring up in parliament, but I feel that if they really wanted to decrease poverty these recommendations would have been implemented straight away.  On my next entry I am hoping to obtain a Māori perspective on poverty and maybe even discover when it first came into being for their culture.

The Human Rights Act and Child Poverty Action Group state that “every child [in New Zealand] has the right to security, food, shelter, education and healthcare” (Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), 1994). 

Maslow‘Hierarchy of Needs’ Pryamid 

Abraham Maslow ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ theory supports this statement as it to indicates that the bottom three stratifications on the pyramid ‘Physiological needs’ (air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep), ‘Safety needs’ (protection from elements, security, order, law, limits, stability and ‘Belongingness and Love needs’ (family, friends, affection, relationships) are vital in the growth and development of children and are essential to help children reach their fullest potential (Krapp, 2005).

It is so easy to assume that parents can easily provide these basic needs for their children, yet reality is they can’t and 270,000 children in New Zealand are living below the poverty line (Andykenworthy, 2013). That’s roughly 1 in every 6 children living with limited food and water, living in poor housing conditions and contracting illnesses that are normally linked to developing countries(Children's Commissioner, 2008). 

So what is child poverty? 

Andy Kenworthy defines child poverty as: “those who experience deprivation of the material resources and income that is required for them to develop and thrive, leaving such children unable to enjoy their rights, achieve their full potential and participate as full and equal members of New Zealand society” (Andykenworthy, 2013)

As I continued reading I realised that poverty is divided into two categories, ‘relative poverty’ and ‘absolute poverty’.  Relative poverty is when “people are relatively impoverished if the customary (average) standard of living in their society requires more spending than the income they have available” (Byrns, 2011).  Absolute poverty is when “people are absolutely impoverished if the minimum amounts of food, clothing and shelter necessary for survival absorb all of their income, and they live a razor’s edge existence” (Byrns, 2011). 

The 270,000 ‘child poverty’ figure at the beginning of this entry refers to ‘relative poverty’.  This means that these children are living in a household’s where the net income is less than “60 per cent of the median income, or those living on $480 a week: just under $25,000 a year after housing costs” (Andykenworthy, 2013).  These children are living in damp, cold and often overcrowding housing, which is a contributing factor to ill-health, poorer learning environments and family stress (Children’s Commissioner, 2008).

Absolute poverty on a “global scale is not present in New Zealand”, but as stated many children and families are continuing to live a fragile existence (Robertson, 2009).

Children can experience poverty in temporary stages and others experience poverty for either long periods or throughout the duration of their childhood (Middlemore Foundation, 2013).  Children who grow up in poverty are often missing out on important childhood opportunities like school outings and sports activities, have lower educational achievement, worse health outcomes and feel stigmatised. As a result of this they can be scared for life and it can reduce their chances to be employed as adults and when they are, they will have lower earnings. There are also higher rates of crime within this group and poorer health (Middlemore Foundation, 2013).  To help aid in decreasing child poverty the Minister of Social Development Paula Bennett has published ‘The White Paper for vulnerable children’. http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/work-programmes/policy-development/white-paper-vulnerable-children/white-paper-for-vulnerable-children-volume-1.pdf . ‘The White Paper for vulnerable children’ is written to protect high risk children and is a guidline to start achieve positive outcomes for them.  

Child poverty is NOT ok and I cannot wait to further explore it to find out what the government has put in place to alleviate child poverty and discover what diseases and illnesses these children are experiencing due to living in such terrible conditions.

Check this clip out, it explains 'Child Poverty' in an easy to understand way.