Belt, good argument. As I conceded to Lucyna earlier, I'm not against feeding genuinely hungry kids but we need much more in terms of reform or feeding the kids will become a permanent fixture as have foodbanks....as their parents go on producing more kids they can't or won't look after.
The job of schools is to educate. Where they are struggling to do so, they should identify the cause. If it is pupil hunger (or health issues), they should work with the community to resolve this. This limits the focus to where the school is obliged to deliver outcomes.
Comments are not moderated but will be deleted if they are abusive. Non-deletion of comments does not imply approval or agreement with the sentiments expressed.
Lindsay Mitchell has been researching and commenting on welfare since 2001. Many of her articles have been published in mainstream media and she has appeared on radio,tv and before select committees discussing issues relating to welfare. Lindsay is also an artist who works under commission and exhibits at Wellington, New Zealand, galleries.
4 comments:
But it sure beats having to try and teach a hungry child.
It does not solve the problem, but why should the children be the victims?
It's harder to break the cycle starting with the parents. Educate a fed child and there may at least be some hope that flows from it.
Or we can just write the underclass off, invest in security and more policing, and feel safe in gated communities?
Belt, good argument.
As I conceded to Lucyna earlier, I'm not against feeding genuinely hungry kids but we need much more in terms of reform or feeding the kids will become a permanent fixture as have foodbanks....as their parents go on producing more kids they can't or won't look after.
The job of schools is to educate. Where they are struggling to do so, they should identify the cause. If it is pupil hunger (or health issues), they should work with the community to resolve this. This limits the focus to where the school is obliged to deliver outcomes.
Post a Comment