In politics there’s a saying: “every generation is up for grabs.”
While some adults may write young people off as "radicals" or "immature," smart political parties know that by winning the hearts and minds of young people they can create strong brand loyalty, which may last for decades.
Of course, this concept is not unique to political parties.
In agriculture many industries promote sustainable food and fibre production to primary and secondary school students as an investment in the next generation of consumers - knowledgeable about and supportive of Australian agriculture - in the hope this will translate into purchasing decisions in support of Australian farmers.
A LOT of farmer money and time has been spent over MANY years on programs aimed at engaging school students in fun and innovative ways to learn about Australian agriculture.
Now more than ever, in the middle of the “milk wars," this engagement is critical.
Imagine my dismay then, when I discovered the government funded “Money Smart” program, which appears to be promoting no-name products as smart choices to Year 3 students!
Currently being trialled, “The House of Needs and Wants” unit asks students to plan and budget for a healthy breakfast. They must decide what is healthy and what they can afford based on their budget.
The learning outcomes include:
Students will develop the skills to compare no-name and brand-name products for affordability and sustainability. They will interview an adult to determine reasons for choosing no-name or brand-name breakfast items, conduct an investigation to test affordability and sustainability of a breakfast item and cost the breakfast.
One of the activities is as follows:
The killer is that last section where students have to re-visit their shopping list to figure out what they could replace with no-name brands to save money. And note that the commentary already includes "milk" in the no-name products people may commonly buy, which would not have been the case 2 years ago I'm sure.
Ok, but maybe it's not so bad? After all, they use the word "sustainability" and suggest there might be consequences in buying no-name products. I wondered how they would test that in a way that would resonate with 8 year olds?
A taste test maybe?
An examination of supply-chain payments?
A consideration of overseas farming practices?
The answer?
An experiment on the relative strength of branded versus no-name paper serviettes.
Yes, in considering the most important meal of the day and all the Australian grown produce that goes into a healthy breakfast, children are studying SERVIETTES.
So, I'm guessing the branded serviette will be stronger. Which probably teaches a lesson about value for money. Which is what Money Smart is all about after all.
But what are they teaching tomorrow's consumers about WHAT to value?
How can students do a similar experiment on branded versus no-name milk? They can't, because quality is not the issue in the current dairy pricing fiasco.
How are these children learning about the value of a sustainable, Australian owned and grown dairy industry? Or grains industry, or horticultural industries, or livestock industries? Where does human health come in to play?
Are programs like this "normalising" the idea of no-name brands as better choices?
What hope do we have to build trust and faith in Australian grown and branded products when government funded programs are promoting the very products causing hardship to Australian farmers?
The full resource is available HERE
If it makes you cross too, you can email Money Smart Teaching and tell them why at [email protected]
Remember, a generation is up for grabs!
