At what point does a 'good deed' become child labour?

Here's a troubling little case study.... a high school in Texas opened a grocery store for struggling families where good deeds are accepted as payment.

It is obviously well intentioned and well executed. It also seems to be ‘working’ in a narrow sense by helping young people to get basic food and necessities for themselves and their family, but the unforeseen outcomes and unintended consequences that might result are mind boggling.

These are the [provocative] questions that come to mind, it would be fascinating to workshop the answers to them with the school and its pupils. There must be a better way of tackling the horrendous levels of economic inequality in Texas (and beyond).

Is this the best way to tackle food poverty in Texas?
Who decides what a 'good deed' is?
At what point does doing a good deed turn into child labour?
What are children learning from this about being good and doing good?
Who decides what the shop does and doesn't sell?
Who decides what is ‘necessary’ and what isn’t?
Should being 'good' be incentivised?
What happens to doing good when the incentive disappears?
Are children who don't need the 'free' necessities exempt from having to do good deeds?
How are the 'good deeds' like helping out in the library now understood by the wider school community?
Will 'good deeds' come to be seen as low status activities that young people get teased for doing?
What happens to this project when the novelty wears off?
What happens if First Refuge Ministries, Texas Health Resources and Albertsons need to pull out?

I’m sure there are more questions to be asked… a key one being - in the middle of a global pandemic, do the ends justify the means? And, if they do: what’s the exit strategy?

Image credit: "Passive aggressive toilet roll guidelines" by David Singleton is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0