Education solutions for child poverty: New modalities from New Zealand

Abstract

This article describes education solutions to child poverty. Through a focus on New Zealand, the article explores the meaning of child poverty, children’s perspectives on child poverty and solutions, and modalities in citizenship, social and economics education to help address child poverty. Four modalities are proposed: centre our work in citizenship, social and economics education on children; explicitly address indigenous peoples’ needs and strengths; take a social investment approach; and commit to community-based solutions. Experts in citizenship, social and economics education are encouraged to use the resources available to create solutions to child poverty by changing policies and norms through new modalities.

Introduction

Ancestors of the Tāmaki people brought soil with them from Hawaiki, the ancient place of origins and final journeys for many people across the Pacific to Aotearoa New Zealand. This soil from Hawaiki was buried on top of a mound of scoria. This place was highly tapu to the early Auckland tribes, especially the Waiohua people who lived on and around the local mountain, Maungawhau. They came to Te Pou Hawaiki to perform their karakia before beginning an expedition and again on their return. The tuahu, or sacred altar, was located there. The name of the marae – Te Aka Matua o Te Pou Hawaiki – acknowledges this history.

It helps me to know there is this history for the place where we gathered for the International Association for Citizenship Social and Economics Education (IACSEE) conference. The chosen theme is a brave one: Citizenship, Globalisation and Education: Drawing the Links and Forging New Modalities. This conference’s theme suggests the need to speak among ourselves before journeying further, to be sure of purpose and resources; to have courage.

My article is about one such ‘journey’ of national and international importance: child poverty and education solutions to child poverty. I am going to suggest we find ways to collaborate and take action. For this, we do need to not only link but to forge new modalities. I will set the scene, look at what child poverty means, and then look at modalities in citizenship, social and economics education to help address child poverty.

This conference has been meeting for 10 years. Is there something from its combined intellectual resources that could help ensure that within the next 10 years the journey of education will have provided courageous solutions to child poverty?

Setting the scene

From 2012 to 2013, I had the sad honour of being a member of New Zealand’s Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group (‘EAG’) charged with providing solutions to child poverty in New Zealand. When the Commissioner, Dr Russell Wills, phoned me I stood up for the call. As he talked of his invitation to join the advisory group, it sounded to me like I was being called to serve my country. I went in as an educationalist with some understanding that child poverty existed in New Zealand, but I was to be surprised by the extent to which it exists. By one measure, there are 270,000 children in New Zealand living in poverty. That is one in every four children. That’s like filling an entire sports stadium like Eden Park in Auckland to capacity five and half times with children.

I accepted the mandate to provide recommendations to reduce child poverty in New Zealand. The moralist in me saw this as being about doing what is right. The sociologist in me saw it as agency to redress inequity. The economist in me said it is about achieving higher standards of living. The educationalist in me said education is the key. And the Kiwi girl in me said, What? Child poverty in ‘Godzone’? This cannot happen here. It does not have to happen here.

I think I also saw it as doing something to help children reach their potential. I thought about the world these children would inherit. I thought about (of all things) Whitney Houston and her song ‘I believe the children are the future’. I remembered when I was a teacher at Manning Intermediate in Christchurch, we had that song at school assembly. The teachers on duty had to stand around the perimeter of the hall. I was on duty and the song came. Mrs Christmas began to play the piano, and as the kids started to sing, I leaned back and joined in. It was not until I noticed a quiet around me that I heard my own voice booming out and opened my eyes, ‘… the children are the future. Treat them well and …’. Yes, I believed and believe they are the future. But as I prepared for the first meeting of the EAG, I thought about how in order for there to be a future for the children there have to be adults prepared to take action in the present.

It was good work to do, but difficult. It is like Karl Jung said, ‘Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves’ (Jung, 1963: 326). New Zealanders were active in responding to the information that came out, irritated by child poverty. Comments ranged from ‘Shame on New Zealand and us all’ to blame (the government, landlords, teachers, parents), to penalise or even sterilise low-income parents who ‘breed’ as one correspondent called it. Most, though, said ‘This is enough. We are better than this’. We must take action now if we want to make a difference for New Zealand children. We are not stuck in this mode.

But are there solutions? The pragmatist in me says ‘Begin with reduction i.e. “reducing child poverty”’. The Airini in me says ‘Reduction is not enough. No child should experience poverty, least of all in a land of abundance’. The researcher/analyst in me says ‘Airini, that’s “No child should experience severe and persistent poverty”’. ‘’Fine’, I say, ‘so long as we agree to focus on child poverty, explicitly, intentionally. That’s fine. You sign up for the social contract that says we have mutual responsibilities as parents, community, schools, health providers, employers, landlords and others for the care and well-being of children; and there’ll be support available for those who need it. You sign up for that social contract and I’ll change my Airini words: Our hope is that every child should be able to grow up in New Zealand without experiencing poverty.’

My own research background means I have a particular interest in equity in education. Most of my time is spent working in education with adult students who dream of being teachers of children who succeed. Many will be teachers in Auckland, which is where most of New Zealand’s children live and where one in four of those children are Pasifika. I am also a researcher with a particular bent for the economics of education. For this article, though, I would like to share a few stories – about child poverty, potential, and action based on four modalities.

Please do not mistake ‘story-telling’ for softness. This is urgent and serious. The report on solutions to child poverty in New Zealand reminds us that child poverty damages children (New Zealand Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group (EAG) on Solutions to Child Poverty, 2012). Compared with non-poor children, those living in poverty are:

• at a 1.4 times higher risk of dying during childhood (Shaw et al., 2005);

• three times more likely to be sick (Easton and Ballantyne, 2002);

• over two times more likely to be admitted to hospital for acute infectious diseases (Baker et al., 2012), and hospitalised at a 5.6 times higher rate for injuries from assault, neglect or maltreatment (Craig, 2011);

• less likely to have fruit and vegetables (Walton et al., 2009);

• more likely to miss out on breakfast and to consume fast food regularly (Ministry of Health (MoH), 2006);

• less likely to participate in early childhood education (ECE) (Ministry of Education (MoE), 2012a); and

• less likely to leave school with National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 – the entry level qualification to skilled employment (MoE, 2012b).

The health effects of growing up in poverty persist into adulthood (Poulton et al., 2002). Similar results have been found in other countries (EAG, 2012). We need the intelligence and influence of researchers and educators in citizenship, social and economics education for this journey to better lives for our children.

First, to illuminate something of the social and economic context for change, what is child poverty? Then, what do children have to say about poverty? Then, what actions can be taken through citizenship, social and economics education?

What is child poverty?

It is important to have a clear definition of child poverty so that there is a common purpose and agreed goals. The definition we used in the EAG was consistent with international approaches to help us compare ourselves with other countries. We said child poverty is about children who experience deprivation of material resources and income, leaving them unable to enjoy their rights and achieve their full potential. That is the systems level definition that helps with setting goals at government level – in health, education, housing, income, employment, and importantly the rights of the child.

But on a day-to-day basis, one-to-one with children in schools I base it on them, and ask if they have the essentials: warm winter clothes, sturdy shoes that are not worn out, access to a doctor, a separate bed, the opportunity to take part in school trips and sports, fresh fruit and vegetables, living conditions that are not damp or mouldy but warm in winter. If the answer to many of these is No, then this is a child missing out on the essentials and potentially deprived. It is interesting, though, this notion of ‘deprived’, or ‘poor’, or ‘poverty’. It sat well with me (as the analyst) and then did not sit well with me too.

During the consultation process for initial options from the EAG, I travelled to Napier on the east coast of New Zealand. There I met with the local branch of P.A.C.I.F.I.C.A. – a nationwide network of Pasifika women working to strengthen their communities. The room was full of mamas and younger ones from Tongan, Niue, Tokelau, Tahitian, Samoan, Cook Islands, Fiji and Māori ancestry. I gave my stellar eight-slide powerpoint presentation on the state of child poverty in New Zealand and in Pasifika communities. My statistics and pie graphs shone. My bullet points fired. And at the end, I asked for questions and comments. There was silence. Then from the second row a mama said ‘Thank you’ and that she did not like what was being suggested. She made it clear that linking ‘poverty’ to Pasifika peoples is deeply uncomfortable, if not insulting, for many from these diverse communities. Doing so is not necessarily accepted as relevant by Pasifika peoples.

The fact is that most Pasifika families, and therefore their children, do not live in conditions of poverty. There is a concern that stereotypes will be built and then reinforced by linking poverty to Pasifika peoples. ‘Yes’, another said, ‘it’s about deprivation rather than poverty, and it is about relative advantages across New Zealand society.’

My message back to the EAG was that measures used for child poverty need to capture distinct population groups’ worldviews alongside the complexity and context of the issue. How we shape up solutions and actions in social and economics education and elsewhere needs to intentionally work to shatter stereotypical views of Pasifika children and their families, must centre on the ‘actual needs’ (a quote from one of the gathering in Napier) of the child rather than assumptions, and come from a position of strengths. Rather than identity being the locale of problems, identity is the place of advantage. Mila (Mila and Robinson, 2010) says that is ‘Polycultural capital’. Adapting Bourdieu’s theory of social space, ‘polycultural capital’ is the advantage of Pacific second-generation (New Zealand-born) experience from being part of culturally distinctive social spaces. Having Pacific cultural capital as well as capital sourced from the dominant social group is about advantage (not disadvantage).

New Zealand and child poverty

The way that children see poverty challenges stereotypes. I think they understand the statistics, I think they see the facts, but I think they see it more personally too. I recently met a social worker who works in low socioeconomic communities on the east coast of New Zealand’s north island. ‘Mere’ told me about a primary school she was working in last year – poor kids from homes that sometimes went without electricity, sometimes did not have enough food. Mere asked the children, ‘What would you do if you won $1 million?’. All that money. All the possibilities. And what did the children say they would do with it? ‘Give it to the poor, Miss.’

Two things strike me about this story – one is that the labels we create as researchers and educators do not always fit with how children see themselves or their world. They sometimes see their needs as less than those of others. I wonder if we really do know enough about children’s perspectives. Have we done what Spivak (1988) says is done to the subaltern – and ventriloquised the children, however well meaning we as adults might be? The second thing is this ethic of care for others that the children can show. Now I wonder if we have been open enough to the children being our teachers and leaders. It is this very attitude and its strengths from the children that are being called upon from those adults and their organisations with much in the way of resources and opportunities. The call goes out to my organisation, and to this Association. We need to care enough to use our expertise to reduce child poverty. That’s what I hear in this story. It pays to listen to children.

Children and solutions to child poverty

New Zealand children and young people have ideas about poverty in their lives and solutions. Almost 300 children were interviewed to assist the EAG. Most were between 8 and 17 years old. Their ideas about poverty relate to citizenship, society and economics. They also are about new modalities – ones in which children are listened to and are integral to social change.

The overarching message from the children was that they want to be involved in the solutions to child poverty. Sure, these children spoke of seeing other children being mean and putting down kids without things. But they also saw what was happening in terms of power when some groups were singled out, stereotypes started and fanned; and a socially divided society:

Negative stereotypes are created so others can feel better about themselves. Everyone wants to look down on someone. They want to dominate so they can always have power. This keeps them on their high horse.

That is not how children themselves saw things staying. Fundamentally, we are equal, with potential and nobody belongs in the ditch:

Everyone is equal. We have the same potential as everyone else. Don’t put barriers in front of us and don’t leave us in the ditch. Help us and support us, our families and communities. How can the Government expect us to look after this place, New Zealand, in the future if they are looking down on us now.

They do not see being ‘poor’ as limiting, but they did talk of doing it rough – rougher than I had expected.

It is hard to share everything of what the child talked about because we from Godzone like to focus on the three out of four who grow up warm, fed, clothed, with choices and support. It is hard because we have somehow let the one out of four down, at so many levels and over time. It can be a different story. It can be one where children are not anxious about their schooling because of the roles they take in caring for siblings when parents have to work. We won’t hear children talking about living in damp, cold, run down, dirty, and in some cases rat-infested and overcrowded homes. If the story changes, New Zealand’s children won’t say,

If you live in a shit house you can have a shit childhood because you are limited in everything.

No money – given the dumb houses, the broken down ones.

And we could change the story if we listened to children asking us to make sure families live in dry, warm homes. We would listen when children say,

Make all houses damp free, smokefree, warm and mould free. All houses should have a warrant of fitness (WOF) like cars. Houses should have a WOF.

And we would listen when children say it is time for money to be distributed more fairly. Maybe they would not call it an economics issue or reflect on the annual household income survey, but some in the 300 did ask for fairer distribution of income by lowering taxes, reducing wage differences, and taxing the rich more. That is what they called it: ‘a rich people tax’ to help pay for welfare. Rashbrooke (2013) put this in context, describing an overall picture so familiar to many countries in which over the last 30 years incomes for those at the top have doubled, while those at the bottom have stagnated. That is why, say Dr Rashbrooke and children, inequality is now such a live issue.

The story that New Zealand children imagine is one with more money coming into households and so more food (healthy food), clothing, opportunities for sporting and social events because mum and dad have good jobs; not the first ones to be fired in a recession, but jobs that are sustainable and higher paying. It is a New Zealand where ‘we can make sure all children get what they need’ and ‘people don’t get too rich’, ‘you are humble’, you are ‘respectful of what you have’ and ‘you don’t waste things’ or money.

It is a New Zealand of community gardens and school gardening clubs; of community hubs like at Victory Primary in Nelson where the school is part of a community village and houses ECE, Parents as First Teachers, PATHS (Pathways to Health Solutions), Te Hauora O Ngati Rarua’s Māori Diabetic Nurse and Men’s Health Coordinator. It also offers a wide range of services such as budget advice, adult education, midwives, Plunket Nurse (specially trained nurses who provide support to parents on childcare and parenting), hearing tests, cervical screening and a homework centre. Rooms in the centre are also used by housing, Child, Youth and Family and Work and Income and other groups. This means parents, single parents do not have to travel far to get advice and support.

It also means the children’s story changes to one of community. We would listen when children say what is needed is

A good environment, not living in a ghetto place where there are a lot of gangs and gang violations. If my environment is safe I wouldn’t be scared to step out the door or speak out.

This is a safe community in which there is

Free fruit – schools start growing their own fruit trees.

It is hard to recount what the children have said. But it is necessary because there we find actual solutions and the values to underpin them.

Forging new modalities

What then can be done?

This is where the IACSEE’s conference focus on forging new modalities was so important. The focus on modalities says we are agents of change. Modalities explain the properties of structure; and particularly the enabling functions that the structure provides (Giddens, 1984). A case is the act of obeying a law. That is, there are limits that the structure places on agency causing the agent to act in a certain way, in order to accomplish societal norms. We share; we do not steal. We tackle in soccer, but we do not assault. Some laws have limited human liberties – such as the opportunity some countries do and do not provide to marry. These limitations can be overturned. Giddens suggests that it is these modalities that illustrate the critically important duality of structure (to be both structure and agency). Modality means knowledgeable individuals can use the resources available to them to change policies, standards or norms that the structure imposes upon them. I think of this conference, this international society as a modality – with both structure and agency. Or rather the potential for new actual modality. It depends. If you merely link up, then that is ‘drawing the links’, but if you ‘forge new modalities’ then you have something quite different, with the potential to transform.

Mindful of the potential here in this place at the beginning of journeying another 10 years:

• What can education offer for solutions to child poverty?

• How can citizenship, social and economics education be an agent of change for the solutions?

I am going to answer by signalling four areas where knowledgeable individuals can use the resources available to them to change policies, standards or norms that the structure imposes upon them; that is, new modalities. These came from my own journey with the EAG.

You can imagine the first meeting of the EAG. A total of thirteen experts brought together (strong in their areas, passionate, busy), two to chair, and a brief to explore how New Zealand can reduce child poverty and mitigate its effects. We had to set the scope and direction early on. And that was to be public policy changes to mitigate the effect of child poverty in New Zealand; and that would do so in the most efficient, effective, fair and fiscally responsible manner. In other words, system-level changes. Currently, the economic costs of child poverty are in the range of NZ$6–8bn per year and considerable sums of public money are spent annually on remedial interventions. Failing to reduce child poverty damages the nation’s long-term prosperity. It also limits the achievement of other important policy priorities, such as reducing child abuse, lifting educational attainment and improving skill levels.

Our first step was to work out the principles for recommended changes and priorities. These became four criteria for checking whether our considerations are on course. Thinking of engaging your work in reducing child poverty, as academics, policy influencers, curriculum designers and teachers, I have adapted these criteria slightly. These four criteria now posed as questions signal how we might forge new modalities for developing actions to end child poverty:

1. Are children at the centre of the recommendations and priorities for research, curriculum development and teaching in Citizenship, Social and Economics Education? In his article on values in economics education, Professor Brant from the University of London challenged Milton Friedman’s positivist view that economics is an objective science (Brant, 2011). Rather, Brant’s counter was for the place of values in economics education. One key reason was the importance of the child and the way the child sees the world. Economics had to be relevant to the child engaging in the social construction of knowledge. Interestingly, a report on value systems expressed by Russian and Swedish university students found that value concepts describing close interpersonal relations, such as friendship and love, were cross-nationally rated higher than values more distant from the individual’s private world, such as democracy and equal rights. With children at the centre of recommendations and priorities, perhaps this means economics education for reduced child poverty will be about the demand and supply of love. The children asked for greater compassion and to be involved in solutions to child poverty. Child poverty and children are not the problem. They are the solution. The first modality to reduce child poverty is to centre our work in citizenship, social and economics education on children.

2. Are indigenous needs, perspectives and strengths guiding recommendations and priorities? Bahbahani’s (2012) research into citizenship education in Kyrgyzstan profiled the critical issue of how to indigenise citizenship in the curriculum. For Pacific regions, Samu (2010) says so far as indigenising Pasifika approaches go, there is evidence and knowledge for Oceanic perspectives of education; perspectives connected to and anchored by an authentic network of Pacific knowledge and authority, recognising and encompassing new forms of Pacific expression and identity, enhancing authenticity and relevance, within our realm of research and education. Without these perspectives and strengths we slide into what Siteine has described as ‘understandings of Pasifika identity, [that] serve to promote fixed, unrealistic, fragmented and singular identities’ (Siteine, 2010). The P.A.C.I.F.I.C.A. mamas wanted our children to be approached without assumption and with a mindset of strength; and drawing on ‘polycultural capital’ (Mila and Robinson, 2010). The EAG was guided by the provisions and principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (partnership, participation and protection). The second modality to reduce child poverty is to ensure our work in citizenship, social and economics education explicitly addresses indigenous peoples’ needs and strengths.

3. Do our recommendations and priorities reflect an investment approach that will generate long-term returns for children and wider society? Citizenship education appears in the curricula of many nations (Mutch, 2011). The aims of citizenship education are often based on the aspirations of society and supported by research and theory that describes what citizenship education is or should be. Seldom do we find links between these aspirational visions and actual societal outcomes. And this is the challenge to not only envisage a democratic, safe and fair society, but to devise policy and curriculum where injustice and inequity are addressed. The third modality to reduce child poverty is that our work in citizenship, social and economics education should take a social investment approach.

4. Are the recommendations and priorities guided by community-based solutions? There has been pioneering work at the community level which offers the opportunity to scale up to wider impact – Every Child Counts, Child Poverty Action, Great Potentials – many among whanau, Pasifika, migrant communities; many across society; many in schools and ECE centres. And that is because we care. It is also because we know – whether by instinct, life experience or research – that the quality of life for all comes from greater equality overall (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009). Societies can and should pursue higher living standards for all. Our work in social and economics education should be to study the value of community action to reducing child poverty.

   Leataata Tupulaga Ole Pasifika Pre-School, led by Mrs Laine Tipi, is one example. This early childhood centre in West Auckland is full immersion Samoan and has become a community education hub. It is purpose built and warm. The children are happy, learning, and blessed with bilingual brains. And the parents have got hooked on learning too. They were coming to the centre on foot and with others’ help. And then they wanted to drive themselves. So they asked not for adult literacy, but for help to read so they could get their driver’s licence. And now there is the hope to expand to answer the call for community services – health, education. Leataata works because of local leadership, the presence of language, culture and identity, a drive to boost learning, great teachers, a commitment to give back to the community, and being welcoming in the local community. So we would find these places of success. Zoom in on what works and then see how and where we could scale up elsewhere. The fourth modality to be forged to reduce child poverty is that our work in citizenship, social and economics education is a commitment to community-based solutions.

Conclusion

None of what we do in citizenship, social and economics education and nothing of what we talk about as education solutions to child poverty exists in a vacuum. We do need to take action. Leaving large numbers of children on the margin is just plain wrong. We can, actually must, make this journey to ensure the well-being of all children. We cannot reach our full potential as individuals or education professionals until we do work together – to show we care about every child.

I have explored what child poverty means, and the four new modalities to be forged. I encourage you as experts in citizenship, social and economics education to use the resources available to you to create solutions to child poverty through changing policies and norms through new modalities. We look forward to seeing what actions are achieved by IACSEE towards reducing child poverty over the next 10 years of this important conference.

Much of this is framed around stories from the work of the EAG; a group that provided a plan for reducing child poverty. It is a sobering picture – one that used to be about the morality of a nation, but is now clearly understood to also be about economics, citizenship and society. For New Zealand, things do need to get better. Urgently. This absence of economic and social benefits can lead to damaged children.

This is our challenge: to work together within education, within and across citizenship, social and economics education to make our nations better places where all children thrive. Yes, we sway and sing loudly that we believe the children are the future. But as adults, we need to be prepared to take action to make that possible.

Ancestors of the Tāmaki people brought soil with them from Hawaiki, the ancient place of origins for many peoples across the Pacific. This soil was buried on top of a scoria mound that was to become the location of a university. A carved pou once marked the spot. People came to this sacred place, Te Pou Hawaiki, to perform their karakia before beginning courageous journeys.

Every day we as researchers come to particular times and places, physically or metaphorically. And we either link, merely, or we forge new modalities through our work in education, and make profoundly and enduringly important journeys towards all children in our nations experiencing the fullness of well-being.