Milk In Schools

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31269, 16 January 1967, Page 10

Milk In Schools

The Wanganui Education Board has resolved to end the supply of free milk to the schools in its area. Although the board may reconsider its view the decision once again draws attention to the fact that education boards have the authority to stop the scheme operating in their districts. Of the 3800 schools, kindergartens, and play centres in New Zealand 2450 were in the scheme last year. They received about 3.5 million gallons of milk costing a little more than 3Jd a half-pint bottle. The scheme costs the taxpayer about £830,000 a year. It is not strong in secondary schools. Most primary schools receive free milk although the children themselves can choose whether they drink the milk. The proportion of milk wasted is very small. Where the scheme operates it appears to be efficiently administered by the New Zealand Milk Board. Although it is sometimes said that the supervision of the scheme in the schools is troublesome for teachers, and although some schools do not accept the milk because of this, no widespread opposition is apparent among teachers. Surveys of parents and school committees have shown that most of them favour the scheme.

If arguments about the scheme simply revolved around its cost to the taxpayer, the means of parents, and their ability to buy milk for their children at home or pay for it at school, then the “ free ” supply of milk to schools could not be justified today. Even if the Government stopped spending £6 million a year to subsidise town milk supplies and the price of milk rose from 9d a quart to its true price of Is 2d a quart, milk would still be a cheaper and more beneficial drink than others on which children spend money. Taxpayers are, of course, now paying this price for milk delivered to schools as well as nearly Is 9d a gallon for the subsidy on more than 70 million gallons of town milk sold each year. If other milk were more expensive school supplies might be very much more important than they are. In fact, health authorities have observed that a surprising number of children do not drink as much milk as is widely recognised as the desirable daily ration. The deficiencies seem to bear no relation to the means of parents.

School milk makes good some of these deficiencies and when it is not available, children often turn to sugary foods and drinks which are much more expensive. It might be argued that parents should pay for milk drunk at school. Although the economics of this may be sound and fair the procedures and supervision that would be necessary can hardly be wished upon teachers. One of the ardent advocates of the scheme, Dr. H. B. Turbott, a former Director of Health, said recently: “ Education boards who say that milk could and “ should be supplied at home are out of touch with “ family nutrition knowledge, which is still inade- “ quate about milk ”. Education boards may be right or wrong in their opinions about the milk scheme. The astonishing thing is that the opinions of the boards are of any importance whatsoever. The boards do not pay for the scheme; they do not administer it. Their members are not expected to be authorities on the nutritional value of milk or its role in keeping children healthy and alert in the classroom any more than they are expected to be experts on the value of teaching French or physics.