Sure Start

I absolutely agree with you.

We had a lovely Sure Start near us. I used to go with my daughter sometimes when she took her girls there. The staff could be relied upon to give advice and support and I wonder who helps new and unsure Mums with all that now. They even had a small garden for children to sew seeds and learn about vegetables. So short sighted of the Government to have closed these but it ticked a box, no doubt. I once heard Sunak say that providing the best education for children in this country is what made him enter politics. Well education begins in centres like Sure Start and they should never have been closed down.

Hope the LP will bring back Sure Start, it was a welcome lifeline for a lot of families.

many parents are charged for food and nappies

Just why shouldn’t parents pay for their own child’s food and nappies?

Because they are not charged at cost - they are charged with a profit margin.

I don’t understand why the parents don’t provide the food and nappies themselves. Obviously there shouldn’t be profit making by the nursery on food and nappies, but nor do I see why tax payers should pay for these items which it is the parent’s job to provide. Many tax payers are not rich, many are pensioners such as many on GN. It is not up to them to provide food and nappies for children at nursery. Free places mean free of childcare costs, not free food and nappies.

My AC have always had to provide nappies and lunch for their nursery age children, as did I many moons ago.

Mid morning/mid afternoon snacks are provided by the nursery.

We still have a Sure Start Centre locally, it is underused according to a staff member.

Parents pay for those things themselves.

Funding is just for the hours of attendance.

I worked in a school that had a Sure Start nursery on the same campus. The Sure Start nursery closed through lack of sufficient children. The parents preferred the school nursery class. I never really thought much about the Sure Start scheme, it seemed like a colossal waste of money to me. The classes and groups that it was supposed to engage in were available elsewhere for a small charge. I don’t really think lifting children’s GCSE grades by one point will change much for the children.

When I was at teacher training college in sixties I remember a lecture about early years support being so much more use than post sixteen but it was too expensive. Austerity did so much damage. I don’t think the Sure Start centres were given long enough to get going in some places. Change takes time.

Sure Start was as much for the parents as the children. It helped mum's in particular who didn't have money or support. It offered them a mentor for advice and gave them an opportunity to raise questions about child rearing with non judgemental people, usually sympathic older women. My friend was one. I think the point about nappies and food is taking the thread in a slightly different path.

Grr. Redundant apostrophe at mums

Yes whoever said long term strategy is right. Sure start did good work and were just beginning to look at where it wasnt working quite wel eg the hard to reach families and looking for new ways to engage with them. Complex intergenerational problems cant be solved overnight.

Luckygirl3 I so agree. Not sure it could be restarted now as health visitors seem non existent and there are no longer the community links around to make it work . In addition so many parents have to go back to work far too soon to enable families to survive.
Hopefully the next government will at least regenerate Sure Starts in areas where it is most needed to support young families, although I think all young families whatever their circumstances would benefit.

GrannyGravy13

My AC have always had to provide nappies and lunch for their nursery age children, as did I many moons ago.

Mid morning/mid afternoon snacks are provided by the nursery.

We still have a Sure Start Centre locally, it is underused according to a staff member.

I didn't. Both my children were in a private nursery full-time from the age of six months and I never provided food or nappies (I guess they were factored into the price I paid). The cost of snacks was included in the price I paid for after-school club too.

I was on the committee of the after-school club and we included food in the fees. Some parents received some support through tax credits, which paid for their food.

maddyone

I worked in a school that had a Sure Start nursery on the same campus. The Sure Start nursery closed through lack of sufficient children. The parents preferred the school nursery class. I never really thought much about the Sure Start scheme, it seemed like a colossal waste of money to me. The classes and groups that it was supposed to engage in were available elsewhere for a small charge. I don’t really think lifting children’s GCSE grades by one point will change much for the children.

I disagree. The one point is an average, so some children would have had their attainment raised by more than one point. The difference a point at GCSE could make the difference between where they're allowed to study for sixth form.

I never used SureStart, but I did receive tax credits for both my children at some stage and they received free school meals. The school received Pupil Premium for them. The little bit of extra help made a huge difference for both of them.

What difference did it make to them?

Sure Start was a brilliant idea. Just looking at the Neuro-Diversity aspect, children could be signposted at a very early age so that a diagnosis or concerns could be raised far more easily. Early diagnosis means better outcomes and also means that the child starts school with everything it needs in place.
Easy access to help and advice also helps the parents. The anxiety a young parent feels without support impacts the child too and can lead to life long damage. I can't imagine why anybody would think it was a good idea to close the scheme down without an adequate or superior replacement. It was so short-sighted. Much of the learning through play in primary education was scrapped too. It just makes you want to weep.

Luckygirl3 totally agree👏👏👏

Well said

I was a child care social worker for 30+ years and Sure Start were fantastic. there were so many referrals of parents, often single usually women, who for whatever reason were struggling to parent. Often this was lack of family support, not sure how to manage the problems babies etc. bring up, difficult/abusive partners etc.
I knew they would be given a warm welcome from wise, caring people who had the time and skills to really listen to people and help with their families. They had things like baby & toddler groups, talk about common difficult issues like feeding, toilet training etc. & often people didn't need to go for years.
In the vast majority of cases people didn't need to go for long, maybe a month or two, just to get people through a rough patch. When you did need to remove a child, referring a family to sure start ensured we had done our best to keep a family together.
Since their closure there are a lot more children in care. I often find Tory social care is naive, I think their justification is that if a birth family is not up to scratch take them away and give them to families who can care for them.
So much of care for children who do need to be looked after is privatised now and as is often the case with these privatised resources, they cost far more than its equivalent local authority provided provision.
I shall be voting Labour to bring about the return of this, as well as all our precious welfare services.

corporatewatch.org/the-foster-care-business/

Sure start was one of the best achievements of the last Labour government and how short sided and downright stupid Cameron's coalition was to impose terrible austerity measures on them.

We are reaping the impact of almost a generation of short sighted and blinkered Tory policies which have impacted on family life in a disastrous way, particularly in the epidemic of mental ill health.

I hope the next government will invest in young families and small children much more, as socieites who don't suffer terrible consequences.

I used to be involved with a Sure Start centre. Parents (mostly mothers) found advice, friendship, support, education, work opportunities and so much more.

Unless you have worked in this environment it is hard to understand how weak some people's parenting skills are - I remember talking with a young mother who dealt with any misbehaviour by telling her children she did not love them. I spent some time explaining to her why this is likely to make the bad behaviour worse - she took this on board and put it into practice. This conversation was only possible because she knew and trusted me from her attendance at the centre.

I ran some singing for the Mums there - they loved it - someone was looking after their children and for half an hour they could do something just for the fun of it - and engaging in that fun meant that the identified with the centre and the staff and were ready to listen when advice was needed - they established positive relationships with the staff.

Good parenting was modelled by the staff and the mothers who came gradually picked up some positive ideas.

It is subtle and long term stuff and a bit too hard for this government to grasp with their mechanistic approach.

It is about investing in these young people's futures, and not expecting instant results.

I hate that babies and children are put into nurseries at such a young age. Even animals look after their own young in most cases.
I understand that both parents need to work these days in order to fund a home and food etc, but I think that if the government (and my taxes) are providing funding , it should be provided so that until the child is 5 and ready for school, either mum, or dad, or a combination of the two should be able to have some sort of benefit to enable one or other to look after their own child.