Sure Start

Iam64

Icanhandthemback - sure start was about so much more than nursery places.
The issues of working parents or as most mean, working mothers, is a separate one

I do realise that and posted earlier about the merits of the scheme. I was responding to your comment about the research you mentioned about children staying with Mum until they are 5 years old.
If and when we get another Government, I hope we get something like SureStart again because it certainly looks as if we need it with the prevalence of anxiety disorders in society today.

Icanhandthemback - sure start was about so much more than nursery places.
The issues of working parents or as most mean, working mothers, is a separate one

4allweknow

There is an economic thought I came across when studying Business and Economics, don’t ask me where, but I do remember it as being quite a strong view. If more parents stayed at home to look after children, there would be less people in the job market therefore those who were available for work would command higher wages helping to make up the loss of the second wage. There would need to be a huge incentive to reduce the workforce to cause wages to rise. Suppose that is how so many mothers stayed home with children until about the 1960s.

It would also cause a shortage of key workers.

Albangirl14

I think that why sure start nurseries worked so well was that all types of parents and children used them and this increased the language experience and opportunities for all . It is a big mistake to put all children with poor language skills etc together,

I agree totally. My area has a voluntary organisation, which receives a large grant from the council and runs all sorts of activities for all sorts of people - cheap breakfasts and teas, a surplus food bank, yoga and exercise classes (some for less fit (including older) people, Christmas presents for poorer families, gardening clubs, teas for single/older/lonely people, etc etc etc. They work closely with the local foodbanks and Homestart, which supports vulnerable families.

The charity isn't "labelled" specifically for poor people and attracts a whole range of people, including those who are lonely. I use their surplus food bank and stay for a cup of coffee, where I've met many people I would never otherwise have met. There are often toddlers with their parents/carers and older children during the school holidays. There are some toys and plenty of paper and colouring pencils available.

I'm always impressed how non-judgmental the whole organisation is and really brings the community together. I expect other areas have similar - those areas which don't should be supported to have organisations like this. SureStart filled a hole in charity provision.

icanhandthemback

I suspect there's a balance, Iam64. Children do need to socialise, learn to play alongside others and prepare for school. However, I do wonder how long the optimum time is to be away from their parents and how early it should start. I know my DGS went to nursery but the reality was that he barely saw his parents by the time they had done a working day. They literally saw him first thing in the morning in the hour's drive to work and in the evening for an even longer drive. Weekends were taken up with getting the shopping and washing done ready for work on Monday. I just don't know that it is particularly good for a child to be in full time nursery from the age of 2 or even younger.

Both my children were in full-time nursery from the age of six months. I'm only one person, but I honestly don't think my children suffered at all. They made life-long friends, whom they would never otherwise have met, had extra adults in their lives, learnt skills which made the transition to primary school a breeze and so much more.

I was a single full-time working parent by the time my son was three. I had no choice but to work, but I always made as much time for my children as I could. Bedtime story time lasted for years. The children helped with cooking and even choosing what we were going to eat. They came shopping with me and learnt not to touch fresh food unnecessarily and how to pick the freshest items. They helped with housework and how to budget their pocket money. Given that so much "family time" is spent on household chores, I wonder what those against nurseries think they missed out on.

Incidentally, my father came from a relatively wealthy family, which had a nanny and various other domestic helpers. My grandfather had quite a long commute and worked very long hours. I know that my father and his brother didn't see much of their parents. From observation, most modern working parents try to spend more quality time with their children (even if they are in nursery) than my grandparents did.

Govts invariably don't think "long term" -- quite a few don't "think" at all. Our system produces politicos who lurch from one instant 'fix' (which likely hasn't been properly considered) to the next. It's been so for many decades.

Sure Start also saved the NHS money as parents could talk to a health visitor or nurse there about their child’s problems - if they had a temperature when the should seek help, for example. Now many parents end up in A and E with minor issues because they haven’t got the basic knowledge about child health.

This is such a fundamental issue, thank you for your post Luckygirl. I think life is very tough for young families today, supporting parents is essential and as a society we need to be doing all we can to nurture and protect our children. In the long run it benefits us all.

I used Sure Start centres and they were amazing, ours had coffee mornings for new mum's and they even had meetings for breastfeeding with qualified support and things like that... It is devastating that they are gone

I suspect there's a balance, Iam64. Children do need to socialise, learn to play alongside others and prepare for school. However, I do wonder how long the optimum time is to be away from their parents and how early it should start. I know my DGS went to nursery but the reality was that he barely saw his parents by the time they had done a working day. They literally saw him first thing in the morning in the hour's drive to work and in the evening for an even longer drive. Weekends were taken up with getting the shopping and washing done ready for work on Monday. I just don't know that it is particularly good for a child to be in full time nursery from the age of 2 or even younger.

I’m another social worker who remembers sure start with admiration and affection. They did great work, often/ usually in the areas I worked , with so called hard to reach families. Baby massage, parenting groups, cookery, budgeting , support with domestic abuse etc etc
Posters suggesting children do better with mum at home till age 5 aren’t aware of the research on early years, or on the fact sure start wasn’t ‘just’ providing nursery care

I was involved in setting up and running a playgroup (remember them?) which served a very mixed community and was a training place for NNEB students. We all learned to be better parents and for some families I know that what the mums learned meant that children were not taken into care. This model of early childhood support vanished as the need for the mothers of young children to earn got greater but it was a valuable source of companionship and learning for mothers and children.

I think that why sure start nurseries worked so well was that all types of parents and children used them and this increased the language experience and opportunities for all . It is a big mistake to put all children with poor language skills etc together,

Not being involved in any way with education I have the impression that there is time given to gender recognition, contraception and secual health. Is there any time afforded to parenting skills? Wouldn't go amiss.

Luckygirl, thank you for your post. I taught in an area of high need and agree absolutely that for some parents, their own experience of being parented gave them poor role models to follow. SureStart offered support, in a co- operative and welcoming atmosphere. Some of these people were wary/ hostile around other professionals. Peer support worked, too and the children gained, and are, hopefully, going to be better parents in time, breaking the cycle of deprivation.

Having led a Sure Start Children’s Centre as part of a maintained nursery school in London, I can say that these local centres were an asset to all local families. Advice & support on all aspects of child development, care, parenting, health, employment etc was available without judgement to all. Father’s & mothers plus other carers all came. We also hosted training places for MA student social workers & other professionals. Having the local paediatrician, other medics available plus speech and language therapy etc was a real bonus especially if a child had SEND or was being assessed. Such a wicked waste of crucial provision which is needed more than ever post pandemic.

There is an economic thought I came across when studying Business and Economics, don’t ask me where, but I do remember it as being quite a strong view. If more parents stayed at home to look after children, there would be less people in the job market therefore those who were available for work would command higher wages helping to make up the loss of the second wage. There would need to be a huge incentive to reduce the workforce to cause wages to rise. Suppose that is how so many mothers stayed home with children until about the 1960s.

I totally agree with you luckygirl3 and keeping quiet

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.

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.

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 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/

Well said

Luckygirl3 totally agree👏👏👏

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.