References

 

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

Blakeley, N. & English, B. (2012). Treasury Report: Data on poverty in New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.dpmc.govt.nz

Brown, J. L, & Pollitt, E. (1996). Malnutrition and intellectual development. Scientific American, 38-43. Retrieved from http://www18.homepage.villanova.edu

Child poverty in New Zealand (n.d.).  Retrieved from http://www.enviroschools.org.nz

Crawshaw, M. (n.d). Neo-liberalism in New Zealand education:  a critique. ACE Papers. Retrieved from http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz

Dictionary.com. (2013) Poverty. Retrieved from http://www.dictionary.com

Expert Advisory Group. (2012). Solutions to child poverty in New Zealand: evidence for action. Retrieved from http://www.nzchildren.co.nz

Farquhar, S. (2008). Early childhood care and education: From advocacy to institution. In V. Carpenter, J. Jensson, P. Roberts & A. Stephenson (Eds.), Nga kaupapa here: Connections and condradictions on education (pp 46-56). South Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning.

Office of the Commissioner of Children. (2013). About child poverty: Brief statistics on child poverty in New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.occ.org.nz

Mom’s love helps kids brain grow.(2012, January 31). CBC News. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/new/health/story/2012/01/31/nurture-children-brain.html

 Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki: He Whāriki Mātauranga mā ngā Mōkopuna o Aotearoa – Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. 

The Children’s Social Health Monitior (2012). Child poverty and living standards. Retrieved from http://www.nzchildren.co.nz

Ministry of social development. (2012). The white paper for vulnerable children. Retrieved from http://www.childrensactionplan.govt.nz

Wikipedia (2013). Neoliberalism. Retrieved from http:// en.wikipedia.org

Poverty's part in positive relationships and development

There is much evidence to prove that a loving, nurturing environment is most beneficial to a child’s growth and development.  Brain development in a child’s first years is cruical to this growth.  All experiences, both positive and negative have a huge impact on how the brain and it pathways are formed.  The results of an American study last year found that when parents love and nurture their child growth in a region of the brain, known as the hippocampus, is fostered.  The hippocampus is integral to learning, memory and responding to stress. The researchers reported that those “children with low maternal support showed hippocampal volumes that were 9.2 percent smaller” than those who were nurtured and well cared for (CBC news, 2012).  Such findings could  be used to inform positive changes to public health services for young children and their families.  With greater education and acessability to support services in health and education, the positive outcomes for those living in poverty could be greatly increased.

The development of a child’s brain is heavily influenced by the attachment relationships they form with significant caregivers.   This reflects the importance of respectful, reciprocal relationships, enabling each child to experience love and care. When children experience environments that are stressful and inconsistent, these attachment relationships may not be made so easily, and healthy brain development is compromised.  Regular exposure  to such environments can cause children to experience high levels of the stress hormone cortisol.  High levels of cortisol can hinder healthy brain development and growth, as they have been linked to “persistent illness, retarded physical growth and, learning and behaviour problems” (Berk, 2010, p. 127).  Living in poverty and experiencing deprivation on a daily basis must bring stress and uncertainty.  Despite the best intentions parents may not be able to provide basic needs or loving, consistent relationships that nurture trust with their children.  In situations such as this, children can experience worry, anxiety and stress.  This can lead to irriversable damage to a rapidly developing brain.

An American study examined the link between poverty and malnutrition, finding that “good nutrtion in early life can help counteract the destructive effects of poverty on intellectual development” (Brown and Pollitt, 1996, p. 40). The importance of proper nourishment for the brain to grow at optimal levels was highlighted by this research.  Scientists also claim that malnutrition can alter a child’s overall development and health “as well as the child’s energy level, rate of motor development and rate of growth”( Brown and Pollitt, 1996, p.43).  Poverty can increase these effects, resulting in cognitive impairment later in life.

This research highlights the complexity of the life long consequences impoverished children endure.  The effects of a stressful home environment and low economic status can also result in poor health and diet, determining how a child learns. 

As early childhood teachers it is important to be aware of the complex nature of poverty in our country.  Providing a supportive and consistent environment for children and their families can foster healthy growth and development.  Using knowledge of developmental theory, current policy and statistics to inform practice, ensures positive learning environments.  Having awareness allows teachers to be empathetic and supportive towards children and families in care.  Sharing knowledge about support services will enable children to thrive and develop to their full potential.   The aspirations founding the early childhood curriculum, Te Whāriki, should be pivitol to each teachers personal philosophy and practice. New Zealand’s children should all have the right to grow up as “competent and confident learners... healthy in mind, body and spirit” (Te Whāriki, 1996, p. 9).  The curriculum supports relationships in the community and the home environment, with experiences that “enrich children’s lives and provide them with knowledge, skills and dispositions” to thrive.  If each child in New Zealand was to experience these things, then despite their families economic status they would be children that find success and achievement in all areas of their life.

Neoliberalism... freedom and autonomy in New Zealand?

Neo-liberalism can be described as the individuals right to autonomy. Farquhar, (2008)  describes it as “a form of political reasoning in which the freedom of the individual from the state intervention is seen as vital to economic and individual wellbeing” (p.49).  This may well be true for those living above the poverty line and able to meet basic needs, but those who are poor often have less rights and freedom than the wealthy.  Access to the law and information has associated cost rather than actually being free, as most liberals would assume (Wikipedia, 2013).  The wealthy are able to choose options of privatisation and deregulation, often for personal gain.  Therefore, those who are poor do not experience such economic and individual wellbeing as the wealthy in light of neoliberalism.

It is those that have wealth that are able to advocate a neo-liberal view, rejecting the welfare state and “almost all state activity as that which undermines the individuals freedoms” (Crawshaw, n.d).  It is fair to say that those who live in poverty are not supportive of these neoliberal views.  Instead, in support of state intervention, with equal access to services and information reguarding health, education, housing and employment.  It is this form of equality that would decrease New Zealands rates of poverty and associated effects.  It would then allow each individual both freedom and a right to autonomy, regardless of class or social status.

Relative poverty and material deprivation

Gabriela Mistral (n.d) writes “ Many things we need can wait.  The child cannot.  Now is the time his bones are being formed; his blood is being made; his mind is being developed.  To him we cannot say tomorrow.  His name is today”

(www.enviroschools.co.nz, n.d).   

Of the approximately 270,000 New Zealand children that live in poverty and experience some form of material deprivation, 51%  are Pasifika children.  For Maori, more than half of the families that live in poverty also experience this deprivation and rely on a regular benefit income (Freeth, 2013).  Child poverty has become a real social issue that is costing the country billions of dollars every year. The 2007 median households income measure shows that between 2007 and 2011, the child poverty rate for New Zealand stayed at 22% (Johnson, 2013).

Many factors need to be considered in the cause of these appalling statistics.  Since the 1980’s income inequality has grown in New Zealand more than in any other OECD nation (www.enviroschools, n.d).  The causes of child poverty in any country are indeed complex and cannot be correlated with one particular thing.

The Salvation Army published a report this year that found a 0.5% increase in unemployment.  The cost of living and number of food parcels distributed has also increased by 1.1% (Johnson, 2013).  This reflects a society that is struggling in the current economic climate. 

As no formal measure of child poverty exisits, instead a commonly used measure is household income at 60% of the national median.  Data from the Household Economic Survey in 2011 indicates a strong relationship between children in single and two parent homes both experiencing relative poverty.  The survey shows 56% of children living in single parent homes and 13% of children living in a two parent home, who receive a market income, are affected by relative poverty and material deprivation.  Interestingly this survey also shows that 8% of children with both parents working are experience relative poverty (Johnson, 2013).  The same survey shows that over 21% of our children live in families that are dependant on benefit incomes, while over 17% of our children live in families who are unemployed.  These figures are much the same over the last five years, with these children remaining “most at risk of material hardship as a consequence of the employment status of their parents and current welfare policy settings” (Johnson, 2013).

 Consequences for children living in poverty are often multi faceted and have a serious impact on their health and wellbeing.   This can often be seen through social impairment and behavioural disorders (Baker, 2012). The Ministry of Social Development’s annual report last year, states that for those children living in poverty, deprivation could include “having to wear worn out shoes or clothing, sharing a bed or bedroom, cutting back on fresh fruit and vegetables and postponing doctors visits” (The Children’s Social Health Monitor, 2012) due to the costs.  Baker (2012) also writes that it is common for children living in low-income families to experience more than twice the rate of severe illness and disabilities in comparison with children living in families on higher incomes.   Missing out on seemingly basic things such as these may seem unimportant and ridiculous to some, but the effects of these basic hardships are great and ongoing.  When considering evidence such as this, it is no wonder that poverty can also be linked to low educational success, high unemployment rates and poor health and nutrition.   

Paula Bennett, Minister of Social Development, published The White paper for vunerable children in October 2012.  It was written to protect vunerable children and proposes to have implemented a Vunerable Children’s Bill by the end of 2013.  Bennett (2012, p.1) writes that “protecting vulnerable children is everyone’s responsibility”.  She urges the country to work together to improve outcomes for these children.  This paper was preceded by The Green paper for vunerable children, which includes submissions and advice from experts in health, education and justice.  Evidence of international best practice was also considered.  Overall, The White paper for vunerable children hopes to create accountability and most of all protection for all children at risk.  Perhaps the result of the changes to be made to relevant policies and practices will increase the levels of successful living for our children and their families.