Education

1. Does this year’s hottest ‘toy’ require parental guidelines?

   Published on Thursday, October 21st, 2010
   With the iPhone being hailed as one of the best baby-sitters ever and a firm favourite with many young kids,  is there a need for the developers and marketers of such products to be issuing advice on appropriate use for younger audiences? 

   In the case of online time, child development experts tell us that too much time playing with technology devices prevents growing minds from other valuable life experiences and such time should be limited.   And with more high tech products and devices coming to market, naturally, more time is going to be spent on them.

   Certainly in many other categories there is an implicit moral responsibility to support safe and appropriate use of products.  So what of the case of the iPhone, which many children love every stolen second of.  My own children like nothing more than commandeering my phone, and, as a mum, it was one of the main benefits I extolled to others almost immediately after getting one.

   Not since the invention of the television has there been a device so easy to distract children with.  But, for example, during a car trip perhaps I should be using the journey as an educational opportunity, rather than simply being happy that they are happy.  On the other hand, the learning opportunities provided by a device like the iPhone are also rich.  So parents face yet another challenge and plenty of potential criticism.

   To date, there appears to be little credible research done in this area and one assumes the lead needs to be taken by those who are developing such products.  For now I am more than happy to occasionally allow my iPhone to be commandeered, but rest assured, we will continue to play I Spy and 21 Questions as well.

2. Entire towns are falling off their ladders

   Published on Monday, August 30th, 2010
   It’s Safety New Zealand Week.  This morning I was reading in the Dominion Post of a renewed campaign to alert us to dangers at home. Apparently last year more than 650,000 of us were injured in the home – one every 48 seconds. Staggering!

   This afternoon ACC kicked off its campaign with a statement detailing more grim statistics. These include more than 17,000 accidents in bathrooms each year, 87 stair-related accidents every day, and 133 injuries per week to children from running through glass or falling from windows.

   Last year we paid out $622 million through our ACC levies for the treatment and rehabilitation of people injured in the home. (I love the way ACC refers to “New Zealanders” and “their” levies, as if they are from another country.)

   We’re obviously a careless bunch because in the past 12 months 5,400 people were injured using a ladder at home – that’s 15 people every day. Never mind that this equates to a significantly-sized town of ladder victims alone.

   Having Safety Week has to be a good thing, but I would like to know how we fare in relation to other OECD countries. I suspect these figures are not apparent because others don’t have such generous systems as our ACC, and they simply have to fork out for their own carelessness. Or it is just the male can-do attitude that gets us into trouble around the home and up ladders.

   I’ve seen lot of ACC television adverts over the years – people tripping over toys and the like – and sometimes I wonder whether we’ve become too self reliant on others doing our thinking for us. Perhaps this is why we are so accident prone.

   Now I’ve not been above carelessness myself over the years, with a busted elbow and compound fracture of the arm.  Discreetly I did this outside the home.

   Perhaps one answer is to have a home-accident prosecution system akin to the workplace one. 

   Other possible solutions are living away from home, having only single storey dwellings without roofs, licensing the use of ladders, or hiring an expert, which would make many of these incidents workplace claims. Just a thought.

3. Another tragedy and chorus call for the Government

   Published on Wednesday, May 12th, 2010
   The nation is shocked by the death the young James Webster, caused in all probability by drinking a bottle of vodka taken from his grandmother’s cupboard.

   It is an absolute tragedy and without doubt we all feel for his grieving mother, father and sister.

   Another young person dies.  This week it was alcohol poisoning, and a few weeks ago it was a car accident.

   In these tragedies we have become used to the chorus urging the government to “do something”. Now it’s arguing the age of purchasing liquor; a few weeks ago it was about raising the driving age. And just last week, PR Matters featured Jane Dodd’s blog talking about how to encourage changes to teen drinking habits.

   It appears that if we don’t know what to do as parents or as a community, there is blind faith that the Government will solve it.  This has now become a reflex action.  In the latest case, doctor and mother of a student at the same college as the dead boy Margaret Abercrombie says: “…people look to the Government for leadership and that’s wholly appropriate.”  She goes on to say, if there were a broader change in our behaviour and attitude to alcohol that would reduce the costs to society and the likelihood of this occurring again.  This is a young man dying of alcohol poisoning, but I seriously doubt any amount of legislation could have changed the outcome for this boy, because as far as I can ascertain, teenagers have always, and will continue to, do silly things.

   Perhaps it’s worth reflecting that one reason for people’s lax behaviour and casual attitude may be that for too long we have relied on governments, not personal conviction, for our frameworks and moral compass.  In reality it might be argued that the more our government takes control of our lives, the less responsibility we feel we need to take ourselves.

   James Webster consciously did a very stupid thing.  He took vodka without his grandmother knowing; we’re told he was intent on doing something “naughty” that night; and he wasn’t upfront with his parents. 

   The fact is that alcohol, in some form or other, has been part of the right of passage for young people.  For young James it was a dead end.  

   Let’s stop looking to government to provide life’s behavioural and ethical framework.

4. It may be the 500,001st word, but it will certainly not be the last

   Published on Monday, March 15th, 2010
   The power of the English language to invent new words and seamlessly adopt them into everyday use is one of its magical strengths, and as a result English is universally recognised as having the richest vocabulary of any of the world’s 2700 languages.

   Why raise it? Well the thought came to me last Friday following a Newstalk ZB chat about the economy between host Mike Hosking and the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Alan Bollard.

   (Not verbatim): Hosking says: What will be the ‘new normal’ then?  The Governor: Well the ‘new normal’ is yet to be determined Mike.

   The ‘new normal’! The two used it as though it’s an economic term that has been around forever and the mass audience that Hosking’s show attracts would know exactly what they are talking about.

   As an economic term, ‘new normal’ has only really built up a head of steam since early 2009 following the financial meltdown.

   Its strongest use to date is around spending patterns. In the United States, for example, the normal spending pattern between 1950 and 1980 was 62% of GDP. In the 80s it increased to 65%, the 90s to 67% and between 2001 and 2008 70%.

   Most economists are confident that spending power is returning, but just where it will settle is a matter of conjecture – hence what will be the ‘new normal’.

   It will be interesting to see if ‘new normal’ remains selective in definition, or whether it gathers momentum as a buzz word, and morphs into a general word describing change, and from there … where?

   As an aside, it’s estimated that there are 500,000 English words (excluding the 500,000 technical and scientific words), or is that now 500,001! German has about 185,000 and French 100,000.

5. Does a rugby final justify silence in the face of bad behaviour

   Published on Wednesday, August 19th, 2009
   Given the public discussion around the Kelston Boys vs. Auckland Grammar rugby game brawl it has been interesting to see the marked difference between how the two schools have reacted through their communication with their pupils and the wider public.

   I was initially disappointed to hear the principals of both schools, in the first interviews I heard on Monday morning, defend their school and blame the other for inciting the incident. Neither one made the obvious point that no matter what the provocation, such violence is not acceptable. 

   However Kelston Boys Principal, Steve Watt is to be congratulated because he did just that later on that Monday.  What’s more, he took action against his own boys before they had even faced the Rugby Judiciary.  Their website shares their statement to the judiciary and the school and firmly puts the blame on all involved.  Although they do hold to the view that Grammar incited the incident.

   Compare this to Auckland Grammar who has, to my knowledge, so far made no public statement and taken no action against the boys who were involved in the fight – whether they started it or not. Surely the same situation applies and retaliation was not acceptable.  Even more for their team, who as the clear winners on the day could have been a little more magnanimous?

   One wonders if Grammar’s upcoming final, and the need to ensure they have a full team available, might have influenced their response. Grammar prides itself on its rugby heritage and is known for being the secondary school responsible for producing the most All Blacks. Is this a lesson we want to set for future All Blacks? And what message does it send to the pupils of the entire school.

   Furthermore, what has been done about claims that the Grammar Old Boys contributed to the heat of the situation?

   When we are constantly hearing about bad boy sports stars misdemeanours in the media, the chance to teach these emerging sports stars about the real consequences of actions has it seems been lost.  We have surely shown them that it is about winning the game at any cost.