Charitable Attitudes

The NZ Herald reports on Countdown winding up its sponsorship of the Red Cross scheme for school meals. According to one of their editorials, it was a complete PR disaster.

“I just think this is awful. I’m stunned about what it says about our society that MasterChef is more valuable than feeding children in decile 1 schools …” – Child Poverty Action Group researcher Donna Wynd

I agree it is disappointing that this programme is coming to an end. I think that it is wrong for  Countdown to be vilified. Charity is only charity when it’s a voluntary effort. If companies are always expected to support charity, then I would say it’s just another line on the PR expenses budget, and not true charitable giving.

Countdown didn’t have to support the Red Cross programme at all, but for whatever reasons, they did. If headlines like this are abound when they decide to do something else, then  companies may decide it’s not worth it to support any long term charitable projects.

The line should be, it’s a bit sad you’ve decided to end the scheme, but thanks for your support over the time you did.

Hmm, this is a lot like sixth form certificate

Stuff observes that a ‘new’ marking scheme for NCEA seems like a return to the old days.

Specifically, makes it a lot more like sixth form certificate (SFC).

How so? We have nine possible grades. But SFC was moderated against the school’s School Certificate results last year for that cohort, one may argue. Well, actually there is benchmarking of how many pass or fail a standard. Under NCEA, profiles of expected performance (PEPs) are produced. If too many or too few got a certain grade, then NZQA would not accept this prima facie.

There is no need for a percentage grades alluded to in the article for a return to the old days. It looks like we may have SFC back, but with more of the grades deemed to be passing grades. Under SFC, the grades were 1 to 9, with a lower score being better. A four or perhaps five or better was considered to be a passing grade.

the word gay

For some time there has been some controversy surround the use of the word ‘gay’ as a negative word. One teacher banned the use of it in his classroom. I disagree that using the word with a negative connation is in and of itself homophobic. (For an admittedly extreme example to contrast, the mere mention of the n-word automatically reeks of racism). This is the same word that once upon a time was a synonym for happy, bright, and had no connotations regarding sexuality at all. There is no doubt it is used to be offensive. But surely context and intent matters. Talking about a hooker is one thing when you’re thinking about the sport of rugby, and another thing when you’re not.

One student quoted  in the article explains

“It’s not good if someone is using it as an offensive word to someone … but if you’re just talking about if the teacher gives you extra homework, that shouldn’t be as bad.”

which is fairly succint.

The meanings and connotations of words change over time. They are not static. Perhaps we could observe the creation of another “euphemism treadmill”.