The importance of Early Childhood Education

Early Childhood Education(ECE) is set to get more out of reach for families. The government plans to shift the cost for ECE over to providers, who will pass it onto parents. Professional, qualified teachers agree that cutting Early Childhood Education will harm the future of children. "The Government spending on early childhood education may have trebled, but New Zealand still lags behind the OECD average per capita expenditure. If it is reduced further, then quality will suffer." The New Zealand Educational Institute puts it bluntly, "The funding shortfall can only be met by parent fees, or cuts to quality.".

ECE gives children the chance to expand their minds, gain independence, get parents back into work and let children socialise with other children. The brains neural pathways are developed during this stage, their own information super highway. But if this highway isn't built properly it can cause collisions and tears later on in life.  ECE provides an enviornment rich with diversity and information to help them build their world view. Parents are the first teachers and ECE is not there to replace parents. It is there to support the child in building their world and giving parents the time to restructure theres.

"I hate onions! Why does the earth need onions anyway?" - Little girl at the supermarket I went to the other day, building her world.

A sore truth in New Zealand dental care

I was watching 60 minutes about 60 minutes ago. The programme talked about problems with dental care in New Zealand. People were finding it hard to afford with one man dieing of an abcess. Dental problems don't occur just in New Zealand, they occur in Canada and Britain as well. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about them.

Southland District Healthboard Director Tim McKay was on the program. When asked why things are expensive he replied(but don't quote me on this) "We are perfectionists. And we like working to the gold standard." He also said "We could do better." and "It's difficult to learn how to provide cost effective dentistry." Of course 60 minutes wouldn't show what the full interview and I think they might of wanted Tim to look like a dork. But he's right, there are problems surrounding dentistry. A dentist studies hard for five years for their licence. They'd want it to be worth their while after working as a student and having a big loan. But should this worth be in money or satisfaction from helping others? These issues don't mean we shouldn't try to make dentistry affordable.

Jim Anderton thinks we need to invest 100 million each year for effective dentistry. That comes to around $25 per person in New Zealand to have affordable dental care. Jim Anderton's often thought of as a "bludging MP" who is a labour voter who wanted extra money by being in another party. I don't always agree with him and think he should rethink his stance on marijuana. Especially after saying "Alcohol is by far the most damaging drug in the country" but not pushing for a alcohol ban. But I think he's well-intentioned, smart and has good ideas. We need solutions if we want more accessible dental care, it wont be cheap but it'll have a great payoff. He also stated how because we don't subsidise adults, they end up in our hospitals costing millions. This is partly due to people not being able to afford it.

Access to healthcare is a human right, article 25. While many of us have access to emergency care, it is not all healthcare. Just because someone can get to the emergency room doesn't mean they will be ok. They could become injured severely or die.

The young adults 18+ and the elderly in this country both have problems accessing dental care. The head of AUT's school of oral health explains that “There is a gap [for them] but there is gap for a lot of adult patients including low income earners and beneficiaries – these people are all falling through the cracks". This was in 2006 and while some strides had been made to get better oral healthcare, they couldn't be rolled out completely before the new National government.

The New Zealand Medical Journal investigated the cost of oral healthcare for the elderly. The concluded that: "Problems exist in the provision of affordable oral health care for the older population in Aotearoa New Zealand. They struggle to afford dental care. They receive little financial support to access oral healthcare services and are dependent on developing their own strategies to enable such care. Health professionals and policy decisionmakers’ challenge is to bridge this gap."

This is not an easy issue but it's only going to get worse if it isn't addressed. While National have put some preventatitive strategies in place, it doesn't mean we should ignore problems we have now.

Art and Science, can they solve the issues together?

I was watching TV3's The Nation after attending the dawn service in Christchurch the other week. It mentioned a enviornmental project called Dialogues with Tomorrow. I was interested so I did some digging.

Now Future is a partnership between Sophie Jerram and Dugal McKinnon. It's about projects lead by art that investigate core issues in sustainability and ecology. It also aims to create a greater partnership between humanity and the enviornment. One of these projects is Dialogues with Tomorrow. It brings together artists and scientists to develop and exchange ideas to help solve enviornmental problems.

In two days it will be the 51st anniversary of C.P. Snow's Two Cultures lecture. This served as inspiration for Now Future. C.P. Snow was concerned that Science and Art were become further apart and their cultures weren't working together anymore. This would have detrimental effects for both of them. Fortunately today these cultures are working more together than they use to. Now Future is an example of this as well as the inventions and insights that have occured in recent years.

Art and science don't work seperately, though it sometimes might seem that way. Just look at Galileo and Einstein. Einstein's book, The World as I See It has some beautiful writing and artistic thought. Galileo had hundreds of inventions and ideas. They have displayed that art and science work together to imagine logical ideas. Though art and science see the world in different ways, they help eachother to see things they normally wouldn't see. If we wanted to be general, we could say science deals with logic and art deals with imagination.

As humans we have two hemispheres in our brain. Our left hemisphere and our right hemisphere. These affect our learning and thinking in different ways. Our left hemisphere is logic or science-orienated and our right one is imagination or art-orienated. Jill Taylor can give us understanding into the full world of both these hemispheres. In 1996 she suffered a massive left brain hemmorage. As a Harvard-trained neuroanatomist her recovery was difficult but gave her keen, imaginative and logical insight into these hemispheres.

She has said that we have two parts and that our imagination is a method for peace on this earth. "I believe that the more time we spend choosing to run the deep inner peace circuitry of our right hemispheres, the more peace we will project into the world and the more peaceful our planet will be." Seeing as how she had to use her left brain for her explanation, it shows that she doesn't believe in abandoning logic. Logically understanding how we can use our imagination for peace is essential achieving peace.

"We are the life force power of the universe, with manual dexterity and two cognitive minds. And we have the power to choose, moment by moment, who and how we want to be in the world." - Jill Taylor

B-Day 2010 (NZ Budget-Day)

New Zealand is coming up to the annual government budget on the 20th of May. It's where the government plans to put its money into. English has said the government would be cutting "low quality" spending. A pretty vague thing to say that could be used later to to describe anything that gets axed. They'd also be raising GST to 15%. This contrasts with what the Bill English said in 2008 about raising GST: "We won’t be doing that … it’s not our policy”

Last budget National did a u-turn on taxcuts, which they said would be essential in boosting the economy. It's interesting reading this from Brian Easton in 2009 and knowing what National decided to do in the last budget. He explained that in order for taxcuts to happen: "A 10% government expenses cut will almost certainly have to heavily target the big ticket items of education, health and welfare." This is pretty much what has happened. Except of course for no tax cuts. Not for the poor and middle class anyway.

It's been signaled that there will be tax cuts in this budget: "Prime Minister John Key pledged to give across-the-board tax cuts in his statement to Parliament yesterday on his plans for the year. There would be upfront increases in social welfare benefits, superannuation and working for family payments to compensate for the GST rise."

Can this country afford taxcuts to do what it's doing now? Healthwise, Educationwise and Welfarewise? Not to mention all the other wises out there such as Justicewise, Conservationwise and Defencewise.

These taxcuts will largely benefit wealthy people. As the Sunday Star Times shares with us: "The Sunday Star-Times understands the government has settled on lowering the tax rate for those earning between $14,000 to $48,000 – which represents the bulk of wage earners – from 21% to 19%. The May budget is also expected to lower the tax rate for those earning up to $14,000 from 12.5% to 10%.The Star-Times also understands the government will, in one hit, lower the top rate for those earning more than $70,000 from 38% to 33%, rather than doing it gradually."

Almost all benefit goes to the rich. We will lose out as a society. This tax cut discriminates against the poor whose tax is reduced by 2% compared to the 5% of the wealthy. While it could be argued the wealthier pay more in tax, they are more capable in handling it compared to poor. Also the wealthier generally achieve their wealth because of the poorer and their wealth has often been boosted by their ethnicity, sex and their own family's socio-economic status. As for New Zealand's middle-class, any hope of extra change is offset by GST. While it's good to reduce consumption, not everybody can. Especially for those in poverty who have to deal with the challenges of being poor. This means generally being less healthy, and being able to afford less nutritious food like fruit, meat or vegetables. It also means discrimination from people viewing living on the beneft as a "dream", like feeding your family on baked beans and sausages is a dream. GST will affect these families the most who cannot easily cut consumption, especially as food prices continue to change.

The poors tax contribution is miniscule compared to the rich, they are the ones affected more by poverty and that poverty discriminates against minorities. We know unemployment is a factor in the causes of crime and the government thinks the solution is to lock criminals up and throw away the key. There's no guarantee that higher growth = higher employment. While New Zealands economy may grow, there's only so many jobs to go around. For businesses jobs cost money. If you can get somebody more qualified to do more for the same amount of money they will do it. Considering the governments record on job cutting, there probably wont be many jobs for the unemployed to enter into. Especially if they've got a criminal record. And as Marty G at The Standard points out, this government hasn't exactly been keen on supporting New Zealand businesses.

Little will be done with these taxcuts to reduce the amount of inequality causing problems in our society. Nearly 14 years ago the social policy journal reported that unemployment was highest for people under 20 and over 55, males, Māori and Pacific Islanders. They reported the cause was partly due to a lack of education, qualification and lack of employment in rural areas. Unfortunately these facts are still relevant to New Zealand today.

Social Service Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand(2008, p. 14) explain that: "The level of inequality is uneven across New Zealand society... Inequality is also reflected in ethnicity – outcomes are poorer for Maori and Pacific Islanders than for Pakeha and Asian New Zealanders" These taxcuts will also do little to reduce child poverty. As the Child Poverty Action Group(p. 5) explain: "While work is very important for reducing poverty and increasing overall wellbeing, a “work first” policy is not sufficient to eliminate child poverty. Parental or child illness and disability, physical and social isolation including poor access to services, fewer employment opportunities and lack of support may all act to preclude parents from paid work.”

So while National would like to increase Working for Families, they haven't specified how much and the poorer children will be left out. While a Whanau Ora co-ordinator/provider who can work cross-culturally sounds nice, it will probably take away from what we already have. It's likely Peter will be robbed to pay Paul. Except the thief will say it was to stop Paul's "low quality" spending as Bill English likes to put it. "Ministers have agreed that Whanau Ora will be financially neutral - funded by reprioritising existing funding in votes Health, Social Development and Maori Affairs. Those details will be set out in the budget." Reprioritising is a vague word and doesn't give much understanding of what will be a priority. These Whanau Ora co-ordinators may want to co-ordinate with other agencies, but their may not be much left of them to co-ordinate with.

Brian Easton has some thoughts on this upcoming budget. He feels raising taxes is probably the most ethical thing we can do right now: "We have very high overseas debt, which we are not addressing, and the ongoing fiscal deficit is making it worse. If nothing is done, our credit rating will be downgraded and interest rates will rise[...] Even so, to avoid a credit downgrading we are also going to have to cut government spending. I don’t know what, and I don’t know when. But I do know that even if it is phased in, it will create difficulties for ordinary New Zealanders – which is why I favour raising taxes as part of the adjustment.

He has also shared insight from Peter Lindert into what raising taxes can do: "In his book Growing Public: Social Spending and Economic Growth Since the Eighteenth Century, Peter Lindert points out that European countries have much more efficient tax gathering systems. They are able to raise higher taxes to fund a more comprehensive welfare state than the US. On the basis of the evidence, he concludes that their “net social costs of transfers, and the taxes that finance them, are essentially zero. They do not bring the GDP costs that much of the Anglo-American literature has imagined.” He goes on: “High budget democracies show more care in choosing the design of taxes and transfers so as to avoid compromising growth … Broad universalism in taxes and entitlements fosters growth better than the low-budget countries’ preferences for strict means testing and complicated tax compromises.”

This country has problems with its health, education and welfare sector caused by cost cutting and other factors. It looks like this coming budget will probably worsen these. If our tax system was made more progressive one like Britain, Australia or Canada's it would likely help fix our problems.

"The welfare state, warts and all, is one of the more noble achievements of those people we call New Zealanders. A failure to develop that achievement would represent a failure of the nation... The Welfare State has been a community response to historical change. To go against this historical thrust would be to abandon New Zealand as a community." - Brian Easton, 1979, p. 177 in "Social Policy and the Welfare State in New Zealand"

Revised 6/5/10, 1:40 PM