This, of course, can be a double-edged sword, as was evident at a recent education conference I attended, where Seymour’s opening line to the teachers gathered was:
“We give more than $20 billion a year for education, for free.”
The emphasis on the words “give” and “free” is mine but the idea that this sentence could come out of the mouth of a politician, let alone one who is the Associate Minister of Education, says a lot about what Seymour was actually thinking.
By “we” I assume he meant the Government rather than the taxpayer who funds the $20b, not to mention his salary. As for “giving” the money for “free”, I can only surmise that he saw the $20b as a gift we should be grateful for rather than as the investment we need to be making in the future wellbeing of our young people and our economy.
He then moved to the topic of school lunches.
We had a precursor of where his “thinking” lay when he earlier declared that his version of healthy school lunches would not include “woke sushi and hummus”.
What planet is someone on who uses that ridiculously divisive word “woke” to describe food that includes salmon, rice, avocado – you know – the fresh, nutritious food that my grandchildren love as part of the balanced lunch boxes their parents make for them every day. The balanced lunches that they prioritise, even as they struggle with the rising cost of living that some parents are simply overwhelmed by.
But, at the conference, Seymour took it another step when he asked, “Is it really the role of education to feed kids?”
Where do we start?
How about we start with the science, in particular the Dunedin Study, globally recognised as one of the most comprehensive and longest-running longitudinal studies on human health and development.
Its finding underscored “the importance of a healthy diet for optimal cognitive and educational outcomes” and “improving children’s nutrition having a positive impact on their learning and development, leading to better academic performance and long-term health benefits”.
But Seymour’s “thinking” was that it was more important to reduce the cost of these lunches (from $9 to $3) by bulk-funding sandwiches wrapped in plastic, which would stretch their use-by date by up to three days, and chucking in a piece of fruit for good measure.
He then went on to claim this would bring these school lunches in line with the sort of lunches most parents were providing anyway.
Even if that were true, which from my personal experience it is not, Seymour overlooked the fact that for children in the fortunate position my moko are in, lunch is only one of the meals they have in a day. They begin every day with a hot breakfast, and end it with a hot, nutritious meal before going to sleep in a warm bed.
For a growing number of children in the lower socio-economic group in Aotearoa, this is simply not the case. School meals are the only meals they can reliably look forward to.
There is no hot breakfast, there are no nutritious meals at night, and often no warm bed either.
So, in response to his question, “Is it the role of education to feed kids?”, I would suggest he look to Finland, a country that for the past seven years has been recognised as the happiest country in the world. New Zealand is no longer in the top 10.
Finland has a population similar to ours at 5.5 million. It is acknowledged as having one of the best education systems in the world. Its GDP is higher than ours, the result of a move from primary industries to a high-tech economy, based, to a large extent, on the quality of students coming out of its education system.
It is also an education system that has, since 1940, provided free, nutritious school meals to all students regardless of socio-economic background. This policy is rooted in the belief that every child has the right to a healthy meal and that well nourished students are better learners.
I asked ChatGPT to compare Seymour’s approach to meals in schools to that of the happiest country in the world. I share that response here.
“New Zealand’s decision to cut back on school meal funding contrasts sharply with Finland’s inclusive and holistic approach. While budgetary constraints are a reality, it is crucial to consider the long-term implications of such decisions. Finland’s model demonstrates that investing in children’s wellbeing through school meals can yield significant educational and societal benefits. For New Zealand, re-evaluating the decision and exploring sustainable funding models for school meals could be a step towards a more equitable and prosperous future.
“Ultimately, the comparison underscores the importance of viewing school meals not as an expendable cost but as a vital investment in the nation’s future. By prioritising the health and education of children, governments can build stronger, more equitable societies.”
Last week in Hastings I saw our very own example of this philosophy in action at the recently opened Te Kura Kaupapa o Takitimu. A beautiful kitchen, fresh gardens and a shared communal belief that kids need to be nourished both physically and mentally.
The results are clear. No issues with truancy. More than 300 students from 2 to 18 years old. Strong results for NCEA 1, 2 & 3. And a waiting list of over 100.
David, let’s look at what is working, let’s follow the science.
Let’s get this right, because the consequences of getting it wrong will be with us for generations.
