Children at the centre

Wake up!  As each day passes the world seems to turn ever faster.

By the time you read this Gordon Brown, Labour's champion of Sure Start and related early years initiatives may be gone as Britain's Prime Minister.  Added to which a Cameron-led Conservative government is almost certainly only two years away.

Sad isn't it.  Ultimately these Labour governments have proved to be an underwhelming dissappointment and Gordaon must take a great part of the blame.  In fact the roots of this failure lie with Prudence, Gordon's first term pledge to stick with Tory spending plans.  This was a mistake at a time when we had a strong and growing economy and set the scene for the last eleven years of managerialism rather than radicalism.  Basically the fight of child poverty was never going to be won, because the government was too cautious and not radical enough.  

So what will a Conservative government mean for us in Early Years?

Probably not a lot, although the tories have been rather light on detail on early years, the Leveller has come to the conclusion that Cameron and Gove are far from radical, certainly not as originally feared, tories in the Thatcher mould.  Cameron seems nice enough and he is young, bright, energetic, reasonably good looking and keen not to offend.  Basically not all that scary.  Of course for most people his greatest attribute is that he is not Gordon Brown.

Wha t we know at the moment is that there will be more involvement of the private and voluntary sectors in the delivery of early years services rather than local authorities.  There will probably be more encouragement for parents to be involved in setting up there own provision - hopefully more localism and pluralism rather than top-down target setting. There will certainly be more 'proper old style education',i.e. phonics pushed down the age range to pre-school.  Less Ofsted they say they want less regulation, although I don't believe there'll deliver on that one (As an aside did you know that Ofsted has a budget of £400 million a year - just think what could be done with that), more health visitors and less family support workers.

One thing we do know the credit crunch and the end of the free market will mean a straightened economy for all of u, there will be an all-round lack of funds.  From a self-interest point of view this will mean more families will be struggling.  I am sure that there will be a renewed drive on welfare to work, as what we will be lacking is people with the skills to earn wages in the grimmer global job market.  Interestingly there are signs that this may solve one problem for Children's Centres, as money becomes tighter in households there are indications that women are asking for additional hours, moving from part-time to full-time or going out to work when previously they would have been content to stay at home with the children longer.  The Leveller believes nurseries will be busier and more viable.  One small problem solved, but what does this mean for society...  ...a bigger question than I can answer today. 

 

Footnote. 

If, as he so desperately wants to, David Miliband deposes Brown and becomes PM there may be a brief respite.  Naomi Eisenstadt, in her days as Director of the SureStart Unit, told me that David Miliband's mother had been one of the founders of the Pre-School Learning Alliance.  One would hope that he would be an ally.

  In the last few months the Leveller Children’s Centre has seen a steep rise in parents admitting to experiencing debt problems.  Things are undoubtedly tightening up considerably, and the poorest families are certain to be hardest hit as prices for household basics such as fuel and food rise steeply. Recent data released by DSCF confirms that the national front on child poverty is being lost.  After considerable progress in the first few years of the Labour government the numbers of children living in households below the poverty line has increased by round about 100,000 per year.  I’ll be prepared to bet my 2% pay rise that this year’s rise in children in poverty will be the steepest yet. Children’s Centres have a woeful record on combating poverty.  A NESS evaluation in 2004 of the efforts of local SureStart programmes in combating poverty through training and employment found a very mixed picture with little evidence of a concerted effort.  True, in many areas Centres have not been helped by the mostly pathetic efforts of Job Centre Plus. The credit crunch and inflation combined may have a devastating effect on families using Centres as they struggle with the impossible task of raising kids on a pittance.  Unemployment too has begun to rise steeply, more children are certain to become reliant on the state to provide the basics rather than their parents.  This isn’t a short-term problem.  There is a clear link between child poverty and poor educational outcomes which means more child poverty today is greater adult poverty tomorrow, and tens of thousands of children whose potential will not be fulfilled. 

So what can be done? 

 

All is not lost; government seems to be upping its game in responding to the challenge.  The Leveller understands that DSCF will be launching a scheme next week to seek and evaluate successful innovation in combating poverty.  In addition they are currently consulting on a scheme to revise the payment of childcare tax credits so that they are more likely to reach childcare providers.  I for one have seen too many parents turn their back on work as they have got themselves into a terrible mess financially through spending the money in the bank before paying their bills. However, Centres urgently need to begin to focus on providing quality services that support parents back into training and employment before another generation is lost.  Concerted effort to work with local schools and colleges would be a place to start.

 

Each week on a Tuesday we have a baby sensory group at the Leveller Children's Centre.  Its popular and at least twelve parents regularly attend alongside their babies.

It's a stirring experience watching the group of babies crawling around in almost darkness exploring the lights, sounds and fabrics whilst normally stressed out mothers visibly relax, on occaision some have fallen asleep for the hour.

This is an undeniably great SureStart experience epitomising all that is good about the programme.  It's new, stimulating, led by a fantastic practitioner who has grown wings as a result of the freedom that working in Centre has given her. Best of all it is designed to reach out and strengthen bonds between mothers and babies in a disadvantaged area.

So why am I frustrated?   Simply because every Monday at least two of the mothers drive up to the Centre in a new BMW or Range Rover.  Thankfully these parents are in the minority and we work hard to market our Children's Centre and nursery services at those that need them most. 

To me this exemplifies one the persistent issues faced by the Children's Centre programme, and wider the early years strategy.  How to ensure that our services are effective in reaching those families that need them most.

Research into the impact of the Ten-Year Childcare Strategy published by the DCSF earlier this month seems to suggest that despite its continued expansion early education and childcare take up by parents is at best static and at worst slightly decreasing.  Even the easy to access free nursery sessions for all three and four year olds is not fully taken up.  According to figures in the report roughly 5% percentage of children have not accessed free early education in the last two years.  In addition the take up is lowest amongst ethnic minority,low-income and lone parents: in other words those families that the policy is primarily intended to reach are the lowes users.

In the round whilst 95% of three and four year olds accessing provision is an excellent achievement by the government it is a concern that the remaining 5% that do not may include a sizeable number of children that really need the additional support.  Of course there are always refuseniks, home educators and so on: those for whom the terms 'childcare' or 'early education' result in hives.  Good luck to them as long as they don't smother their children.  However, parents such as these are very much a curiousity and a real rarity.

Much more common of course are parents that are really grateful for the free entitlement whether its used in maintained, private or voluntary sector.  So where are these missing children.  Could it be these are still the 'hard to reach', unable or unwilling to get their children to nursery?  If these are indeed the missing children it seems likely that unless we can work more effectively together to identify and entice the most deprived children into early education that the whole policy will be deemed a failure.

 Might it be an idae for an element of Nursery Education Grant to be allocated on the basis of how inclusive settings are and how hard they try to reach lone parents, workless households, teenage parents etc.

I have met Gordon Brown, quite a thrill in those days.  He is a sincere and, in the flesh, a likeable man.  I feel I know that the Prime Minister really champions Sure Start.  After all Sure Start came out of the Treasury in the early, bright days of the New Labour government.

 So why has New Labour blown it with Sure Start?

1) Meddling - Sure Start began life as an ABI, area based initiative, to support the poorest families in the 250 identified poorest communities in England.  In the early days there was little mention of daycare, sure it was related, but certainly not integral to the programme.  The programme began as holistic - health, early learning and community regeneration targets in equal measure, but slipped into responding to one minister's hobby-horse after the next. 

Sure enough as each priority target was tested and ultimately failed it was turned on its head and the counter-point became the imperative.  First, programmes were urged to 'reach' as many children as possible, but latterly numbers weren't important and it was all about quality interventions even if only with very small numbers of children.  Likewise, at the beginning daycare wasn't even in the programme then it became almost the sole focus for a while overshadowing issues such as outreach work.  Consequently daycare isn't the priority anymore the focus is the 'hard to reach' children.

2) Too much emphasis on buildings - Infrastructure is important, but why is it that minsiters, MPs, senior civil servants all fall over themselves to come to open a new Children's Centre, showing little interest in what actually happens inside?  Many buildings constructed by the state, academies etc are the ultimate vanity projects, proof that the initiative must be working.  There has been too much emphasis and energy wasted on having x number of Centres built, open or whatever and too little realisation that the most disadvantaged parents don't want some enormous edifice at the end of the road which costs a small fortune to staff and maintain, what they need is a warm and friendly place to go, this could be a terraced house or even a tatty portacabin.  Sadly I've been to too many pretty Children's Centres that have very few parents in them.

3) Not radical enough - All over the place, even in relatively high achieving places there are many examples of Health Visitors are still working under the direction of GPs and daycare nurseries being built down the road from existing nursery schools.  Government should have legislated to force existing services to come together around families with young children, taken the initial unpopularity hit from unions and professions instead of leaving itself open to the charge of services being duplicated and money being wasted.

4) Loss of local accountability - In the early days government was brave, insisting that local parents drove the design and commissioning of services, now this is unimportant just gets the odd mention in passing.  What people forget is that if you ask people what they want you might not like what they say.  So now we have the dreadful Together for Children banging on about the number of centres open this week, and who are they - consultants dashing about in Serco cars accountable to no-one but shareholders and haranguing local authority officers to get centres opened regardless of the quality. 

Unfortunately, New Labour, particularly under Brown, has developed a great mistrust of the public and thinks it knows best.  This is exemplified by its intolerance of all things bad for you - sex, drinking, smoking etc, but also by its abandonment of ABIs such as Sure Start and its top-down imposition of targets from the centre regardless of whether they are enthused over by local families or not.  Sorry, Gordon, you've blown it, please get back to listening to the people. 

The two big issues that will determine the sucess of the government's Children's Centre programme are accessible, quality and affordable childcare and the effectiveness of Children's Centre Family Support Workers.  Both of these strands of activity are critical, particularly in demonstrating their effectiveness in supporting the most vulnerable or hard to reach families and children. 

Outreach and Family Support work seems to be becoming the hot issue for Children's Centres this year.  Clearly it's absolutely vital that Family Support Work should be safe, directed at those families that need it most, designed to meet the needs of families, effective and value for money.  But is it yet?

What research there is into effective family support work seems to indicate that focussed, structured interventions have the greatest impact.  One of the miost encouraging examples currently is the pilot health-led parenting programme that has been operating in a number of pilot areas in the last couple of years.  Very simplistically this programme identifies vulnerable teenage parents when they 'book' (confirm their pregnancy) and partner them with either a midwife or health visitor who consistently visits every week for the next two years.

With its emphasis on professional input and its intensity this approach is going to be expensive on the face of it, but if it is effective its surely worth it.  However, is it practical to offer models like this across the Children's Centre network?  There are Children's Centres across the country are struggling with defining what their family support offer should be.  Faced with limited resources centres often have workers doubling up: running groups or even working in daycare if the ratios are stretched.

In my experience this kind of targetted, structured and outcome driven approach rarely exists at the moment in Children's Centres.  There is a great deal of anxiety about what work Family Support Workers are actually doing on the ground.  These are in effect an emerging professional group, but without a given set of professional standards.  What really concerns me is that, as a result, some Family Support Workers might be doing more harm than good. 

There is an urgent need to examine the skills, knowledge, training and supervision of the Family Support workers that are out there now and that will be recruited in the future.  At my centre we have moved away from workers with early education or childcare background and have targetted recruitment at workers from practical health or counselling backgrounds.  I believe that workers with these backgrounds are, to put it bluntly, safer and less likely to do harm.   They also bring evidence-based knowledge of issues such as breastfeeding, smoking cessation and emotional and mental health.  This means that they can work alongside other professionals such as midwives and health visitors, offering a more informal type of support to parents, but with less risk that parents will receive contradictory advice.

Children's Centre Managers, Local authorities and the CWDC need to stpe up to the plate urgently here.  Children's Centre Managers - forget rivalry and trying to make your centre different / bettr that the one up the road and learn from one another.  Local authorities as the strategic lead for Children's Centres are ideally placed to examine the practice of Children's Centres in their locality and to commission training and advice on best practice.  I know that the CWDC is looking at this, I hope they get it right and that they have the means to set some national standards and recommendations for good practice.

At the weekend David Cameron made speech undermining Sure Start, promising to cut Outreach Workers from Children's Centres and replacing them with more Health Visitors.

As far as I can see this is simply another attempt by Cameron to portray the Labour Government as profiligate and wasteful with resources.  In addition he may be trying to reach out to overstretched NHS workers by saying that he values their tried and trusted professionalism over new-fangled approaches.

Whilst I have absolutely no problem with Health Visitors whatsoever, Cameron's proposal is actually a backward step.  In reality his proposed increase will only get the current Health Visitor workforce up to strength, and lets face it if they had done such a good job histotically we wouldn't have needed SureStart in the first place.  Whilst it is changing many Health Visitors are still charged with visiting every mother with a new born rather then targeting those most in need.

Cameron dare not say that he will get rid of Sure Start as he's making every effort to portray himself as family guy in charge of a family friendly Tory party.  However, he doesn't really believe of the aims of the policy: to target the poorest and most vulnerable children.  Face it the Tories have never been sympathetic to single parents or the children of immigrants for example.  Read the Daily Mail if you are in any doubt. 

When Cameron goes on the TV and says he likes SureStart 'my children have used it' he just confirms that hes missed the point - its not meant to be for the children of millionaires.

What could be really damaging is that Cameron's comments could set professionals working in early years against each other, undoing many years of effort to develop integrated services.  It could also undermine some parent's confidence in Surestart services which won't help anybody.

The latest NESS report shows that SureStart is at last beginning to have a real impact.  Those of us there at the beginning will remember that we all said that SureStart would take a generation to make a real change. 

Keep the faith, stuff Cameron, what does he know?

The Whistleblower programme has clearly raised old concerns about the quality of education and care provided in formal childcare settings.

The Leveller shares these concerns, but we need to be realistic there are rogues in each and every business.  In my opinion the standards of care provided in nurseries and other settings have rocketed in recent years.

Since the introduction of government initiatives in early years the the beginning of the decade there has been great investment in early years and corresponding increases in standards.  The Effective Pre-School Practice (EPPE) Research has shown that with quality and consistent care children in nursery settings do well.  Furthermore the government has changed policy to incorporate key findings from the research such as the efforts increase the level of qualifiactions within settings and the ongoing extension of free nursery entitlement.

Children within daycare settings are safer now than ever before, protections are offered by Ofsted, CRB checks, monitoring and support by the local authority and, in the current context I would also argue the market also offers protection.   Parents are becoming more discerning consumers and with overprovision in many areas parents are able to pick and choose a nursery of their choice.  Put more simply bad providers will go bust.

Of course there are problems, low pay and status being high among them.  We still allow our children to be predominantly cared for by an army of poorly educated, often young women.  However, in truth, has this ever been any different?  There is a solution, but the economics of daycare are problematic, and I do believe that unless the government accelerates towards a more Scandanavian funding arrangement day care will continue to be a struggle, and as a direct result scandal-seekers will find what they will. 

The Leveller is worried about Children's Centres co-located with schools.

 

Wht?  Loads of reasons...     ...Let's face it early years has always been the poor relation in education circles.  For a start it's non-statutory, and in the highly competative school world that means it's low status.  Another thing - in the Leveller's experience many schools are like islands in their neighbourhoods, inward looking and self-excluding from everything else around them.  To be fair the Extended Schools initiative has had some impact in changing attitudes a little, but I'm still worried.

To begin with there seems to be a lack of understanding of what Children's Centres are there to achieve.  Ok, many schools are complex and very intense busy places.  In addition, schools get Centres handed to them on a plate, they don't really have to do a lot to change the way that they do things.  The Leveller has heard a number of Heads proclaim that the Centre must 'fit in with the school'.    

The Leveller is concerned about poor access to Childrens's Centres during holiday periods.  There can be problems with key staff being on hoilday and large sections of buildings / facilities being shut down during holiday periods.

Lets face it some schools are less welcoming than they could be.  A school my own daughter went to wouldn't let parents come inside the building when waiting to collect them even in the most foul weather and parents were not welcome in the classrooms except on very special occaisions - a very different ethos from early years.  Sadly schools are often stigmatised places where more vulnerable parents feel very uncomfortable.  The presence of these factors would compromise the prospects for success of co-located Children's Centres.

One of the major concerns I have about Children's Centre's co-located with schools is the way in which Children's Centres workers roles are blurred and stretched across the school environment.  Examples I have regularly come across are:

• Family Support Workers asked to work across the full Children's Centre and School age range - While this may sound ok to some, to me it is simply using early years funding to deliver school services.
• Family Support Workers that have to work so flexibly they are asked at turn to work in the nursery, on reception or in a creche.  In this type of scenario there will be no quality and little impact on parents.

The major problem seems to be the fact that within some schools early years Children's Centre services are treated as being secondary to the mainstream school services.  While this situation is allowed to continue Children's Centres based in schools risk being a major dissappointment.

 

Serco - government's Mr Fix-it.  Everything from nuclear weapons, detention centres for illegal immigrants to Early Years Children's Centres - am I the one who finds this a bit scary?

As the Serco website quite openly states: 

'Serco provides support services to the armed forces of a number of countries around the world, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and Australia, working across land, sea, air, nuclear and space environments.'

'Since 2000, Serco has been entrusted with the management of the UK Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), which provides the warheads for the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent.'

Is this kind of activity really appropriate for the body supporting the development of the government's Children's Centre programme?  Is a multi-national company that is driveen by its shareholders to maximise profit really the best advocate for reducing child poverty?  And, does this threaten one of the principles that was at the very heart of Sure Start local programmes, namely accountability to local parents?

Serco is the major partner in Together for Children, the public private partnership arrangement that is supporting the national development of Children's Centres and integrated services across England.

It appears to the Leveller that Serco is the company that the governemnt sends for when a project is in trouble, allowing the politocians to distance themselves from problems and shrouding the spending of public money behind third party business accounting.  For example, Serco has recently taken over as 'strategic partner' of Stoke on Trent Children's Services Department after it was rated as the worst in england in 2006.  One of Serco's bright ideas in Stoke has been to re-tender the childcare provision in the city's eight Children's Centres after they discovered that they were losing the council £1.2 million a year.  The move has provoked an outcry from staff and parents alike and for the time the tendering of the nurseries being has been shelved.

A look at the Together for Children website (www.childrens-centres.org) paints a depressing picture, there is some useful stuff on there, but the stress is on delivery of Centres as quickly as possible, i.e delivering outputs (more centres) without a deal of regard for outcomes for the poorest children.  Indeed whilst the Together for Children recent guidance on phase 3 Centres is highly prescriptive

 'Other priorities for phase 3 centres are: supporting parents and providing access to evidence

based parenting programmes; working with fathers, teenage parents and children and families

from minority ethnic groups.

Planning for phase 3 centres should include consultation with potential users of a centre, with

advisory boards established at an early stage and definitely before designation.'

 

The Leveller believes that the use of the words 'should include consulation with potential users' is significant.  Centres are no longer required to do this.  I believe this can only be for two reasons.  First, consulation will slow things down thereby preventing the achievement of the output and secondly, because the philosophy has changed - services Centres are now required to offer are increasingly proscribed and therefore the views of parents and children are of less value.

As a footnote on Serco...

'runs two immigration removal centres in the UK: Dungavel and Colnbrook; UK immigration centres have been condemned by Amnesty International in their 2005 report 'Seeking asylum is not a crime'. In 2004 one asylum seeker committed suicide in Dungavel and another attempted suicide at Colnbrook (to die later in hospital).  A Freedom Of Information request to the Home Office disclosed that 'between 1 January 2004 and 10 April 2005, 150 children aged up to 17 years old were detained at Dungavel.'  (Thanks to www.corporatewatch.org.uk)

 

Every Child Matters?

Down at Leveller Towers we're intruiged by the Ed Balls's plan to extend Nursery Education Funding for 2 year olds.  Funding was pilotted in a number of authorities recently, and presumably it's been evaluated asa success.  The Children's Plan, published in December, announced that this pilot would now be extended to 20,000 two year olds.  Good news - we think.

Presumably, just as when funding for three and four year olds was introduced, this is just the start of more mainstream funding.  Thing is 20,000 whilst sounding like a big number just isn't.  I haven't woked it out scientifcally, but there must be about 500,000 two year olds in England alone.  This raise the spectre that this initiative is going to be targetted on particular wards, or even particular children - a postcode lottery that is so unpopular with providers and parents alike. 

Anyhow if, as seems likely, it is to be targetted I just hope it's at disadvantaged children that are not already in daycare and at children who are alredy identified as falling behind their peers due to lack of socialisation and too much daytime telly.  Perhaps this initiative may just help to revive the playgroup - all but extinct in many Children's Centre areas, being unable to compete with proliferating, purpose-built daycare settings.

2008 looks a bit gloomy wouldn't you say?  Gordon's doing his best to kick us off with large dose of gloom as if we need it in January.  Us workers we can all look forward to an inflation limiting (he hopes) three year deal pay deal whilst utility prices and other stuff shoots up.

Sorry!  Ok, so we're in for an economic slowdown.  I don't think it will make much difference to most of our parents and children down at the Leveller's Children's Centre - they'll still be skint.

Sometimes I think we forget what the purpose of Sure Start was.  Remember - eliminate child poverty within a generation.  Ed Balls has won deserved plaudits for reaffirming the government's commitment to ending child poverty by 2020. Unfortunately for Ed if things remain as they are I think he's being totally unrealistic.  Most Children's Centres I come across don't seem to have much idea how to support parents getting back in to the workplace, in fact some don't bother and some actively dissapprove of the idea.  A NESS (National Evaluation of Sure Start) research report (2004) into the effectivesness of Sure Start programmes work to support parents into work and training concluded that:

'The emphasis given to support for employability by programmes reflects different local perceptions about the appropriate role for mothers in the early years. In many Sure Start areas there is a strong community emphasis on the importance of mothers being at home in their children’s early years.'

And,  

'The proportion of parents taking part in employment and training activities, even in the most active and encouraging programmes, is low.'

Unfotunately many Children's Centres have a strong distaste for welfare to work schemes, and tend to deal with the immediate problems a family faces rather then guiding parents that are able towards employment or vocational training.  

In addition data on inequalities published last year by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation showed that inequality of income is has increased rapidly during the 10 years of Labour government, and is now at its highest for 40 years.  As says Kate Green, Chief Exec of the Child Poverty Action Group, says:

'The research portrays a deeply concerning picture of two Britains, one with ever growing wealth and the other stuck in poverty, living side by side but having little to do with each other. Children born in poverty have very poor chances of becoming part of wealthy Britain in their lifetime.'

This causes me to ask: Do Children's Centres actually stand any chance of meeting the objective of reducing child poverty in the face of such powerful macro-economic forces?

The extra £4 billion announced for Sure Start in the August 2007 spending review will help, if local authorities can begin to actively guide Children's Centres towards commissioning training and employment projects over more popular projects such as parent pampering sessions.  Lets get it in perspective though - in November 2006, Goldman Sachs announced profits of $9.5 billion, a large portion of which was shared between the company's 24,000 staff.

What the leveller thinks is needed is a change in taxation policy - lower tax rates for the low waged, to really incentivise them to seek work.  For instance, lets face it if people didn't pay tax on the first £15,000 of salary a lot more people would be motivated to take low paid work, including childcare - there's a thought!  Gordon's stingy pay proposals wouldn't look so mean then.

 

 

Since my last post I've been thinking about wjat has been going on in childcare in the last yera.

 

The whole childcare sector is in tumult.  Many private childcare businesses are going to ashes, completely subverting the image of fat cat owners making money exploiting parents and staff.  Whilst in the maintained sector it's arguable that nursery education has never experienced so much pressure.  As for childminders, they seem to be dissappearing rapidly, in my Children's Centre area there used to be almost 10 childminders operating, but now there's only a couple struggling on.

 

Will there be a Phoenix rising from the ashes - can the sector and industry begin to re-invent itself in 2008?

 

What's going on?  In the private sector all but niche providers or those operating in very prosperous neighbourhoods are really up against it financially.  For example, in 2007 the Leapfrog chain had to be sold at a knock down price to stave off financial meltdown.  Chains in trouble tend to make the headlines, but all over small providers are experiencing secere financial pressures caused by the extension of Nursery Education Grant at lower than viability levels, over-provision and rising staff costs.  In an industry that is highly sensitive to the state of the wider economy with the widely expected recession just around the corner the future looks bleak.  Many people won't lament this.  Lets face it it will be a good thing for children if some substandard providers go under.  Anybody who has worked in childcare for any length of time will be pleased to see the back of nurseries operated in rickety converted building with children kept all day in rooms upstairs with hardly any opportunity to go outside, or those providers who warehouse children in huge barns on industrial estates.

 

And the maintained sector?  In 2007 the government announced that from 2011 all early years settings, maintained or PVI, should receive funding on an equal basis from local authorities.  As well as this the trend for primary schools to now take a single intake of children into reception in September now means that there are simply less 4 year old children to attend sessional nursery care.  Sometimes going to a nursery class or school evokes nostagia in me for my own childhood, takes me back to the 1970s - comforting, safe, but hopelessly out of date!  I often asked myself in 2007 'What use are sessional maintained sector nurseries to anybody?'  For working parents this part of the sector is completely inaccessible - only open for 2 1/5 hours a day 38 weeks of the year and liable to close at the drop of a hat for staff training - it's not exactly flexible provision.  And for non-working parents this kind of provision doesn't exactly support those in our children's centre area with seeking work or attending courses.  Unless the maintained nursery radically changes its function in the next few years I can see it becoming something of a rarity.  There is a huge downside to this as many nursery schools particularly are real centres of excellence, packed full with excellent practitioners - I do hope that some of these teachers will be able to adjust to the new reality.

 

So where does this leave us in 2008?  Well... has the situation described above occurred because of laissez-faire government policies leading to chaos or does the government have a plan?  It's a plan I think: Children's Centres, the future?  In 2008 Children's Centres have to come to the table, the rate at which things are moving in the sector means that Children's Centres will be the only game in town soon.  In 2008 Children's Centres really need to come to the party and offer parents the best elements of both the 'old' private and maintained provision: flexibility and customer focus as well as excellent child-centred practice; together with a third element - easy acess to integrated child and parent support services.  I hope that we will not dissappoint, if we don't the overall situation for parents and children could be a lot worse than it is now after this past year of quiet revolution.  

Here at The Leveller’s Children’s Centre we’re going broke.  It’s four months until the new financial year and I’ve had to tell the staff to stop spending and freeze recruitment. The reason - like most Children’s Centres our childcare provision is running at heavy financial losses.  Daycare in Britain is in a muddle and a mess.  As Steve Alexander, Chief Executive of the PLA, said in Children & Young People Now recently he doesn’t know anybody that is making money at the moment.  The plain fact is that most providers are either only just breaking even or making losses.  Whilst it is still possible for daycare to be viable and profitable in more affluent areas where demand is high and fees can be set at a reasonable level, in less affluent or disadvantaged areas the likelihood is that providers will be set for losses, job insecurity and financial ruin. Why is this?  Providers seem to be faced with heavy pressures on all sides. Over provision of places.  Whilst Sure Start and Children’s Centres policy has as one of its main aims to support parents (mainly mothers) back into work it hasn’t happened in the numbers that government hoped and as a result many new nurseries are undersubscribed.  In the more disadvantaged areas of cities where Children’s Centres are cheek by jowl with one another and with existing maintained or private provision nobody is full and it seems likely that a major cull of places will be needed.Hardly surprisingly many local authorities have been reluctant to plan proactively for this, waiting to act until the wheels fall off – we need some real leadership in the sector here. Rising costs – in the search for quality Children’s Centres have often offered staff higher salaries than the private sector whilst charging lower fees.  No-one can argue against paying the childcare staff a decent wage for a job that has responsibility for safeguarding and educating the nation’s future, but the sums don’t add up. Tax credits.  For many, indeed for those families that it is particularly designed to help the childcare tax credits system hasn’t worked.  Many parents are simply just not organised enough to manage their affairs, and can you really blame them?  Low wages, often long hours or shift work and young children to care for.  As a result parents become indebted and we end up send the debt collectors after them – a real case of the reality not living up to the grand vision.  Parents resent paying £150 a week for childcare is over £7,500 a year – you can get a place in most decent prep schools for that never mind in a backstreet nursery.  As a result some won’t pay, some can’t pay and some just don’t pay. 

Financial mismanagement.  It’s interesting to note the emergence of some very large providers coming into the sector – the reason economies of scale.  Quite rightly Children’s Centres often like to see themselves as all unique and special.  Why not?  Its makes for a hopeless business model – if every centre has its own cook, on-site administration and no-fallback position to cover absences costs soon escalate.

 

 So what’s the solution, the leveller doesn’t want to be accused of being negative? A review and reduction in early education and childcare places – I dare to suggest that the main area to be reduced should be the maintained sector as the model of sessional early education for three year olds 38 weeks a year does nothing to support parents into work and thereby regenerate disadvantaged communities. Payment direct of tax credits to providers to cover fees.  This would avoid the prospect of tax credits being used for other household expenses and prevent parents getting into financial difficulties with the Children’s Centre, the very people who are there to support them.   Relaxing the adult: child ratios for daycare.  We estimate that even when our 0 – 2 area is full we still lose £1,000 per year per place on this age group.  Paradoxically in the better-funded maintained sector ratios are lower.  In addition, if ratios were lower it would allow providers to pay staff better wages that in turn could lead to better quality. If the current situation is allowed to continue it could be a disaster for staff, parents and children reliant on those services.  It can be argued that the current structures offer terrible value for money.  Sure Start and Children’s Centres have been criticised for not reaching the most vulnerable children, yet it seems likely that millions are being used to subsidise day care within Children’s Centres that are chiefly used by working parents choosing the better resourced and higher quality on offer at Children’s Centres and who generally do not require the services.  We need a debate. 

 

Welcome to the leveller, a new blog written by an experienced Sure Start Children’s Centre Manager.

Every child deserves an equal opportunity to succeed, and SureStart is a major attempt by government to intervene to increase opportunity and reduce inequality starting from birth.  The leveller completely endorses this hypothesis and endorses the holistic, whole child coherence of the policy.  However, as Sure Start Children’s Centres become part of the mainstream why is it that inequalities actually seem to be widening rather than reducing, and what are the reasons why SureStart has not lived up to its potential to make a step change in reducing disadvantage?

The leveller is aimed at people working within Children’s Centres, within early years or more generally people at large with an interest in increasing equality of opportunity and in ensuring that a child’s life chances are now determined before birth.

The house style of the leveller is interactive and argumentative, but not destructive.  The one house rule is that personal abuse will not be responded to.  There is much that is great about the SureStart programme, but the radical potential of the SureStart programme to transform the poorest children’s life opportunities has not been realised in a consistent way.  Through the blog I will examine matters of research, policy, practice and attitude, looking at ways in which the barriers to the programme’s success may be taken down.

The leveller will reflect the truth as I see it, being both an attempt to look at the evidence and to articulate an emotional response to the reality of being a Children’s Centre Manager.  For obvious reasons the leveller will remain anonymous.

Issues I will be examining in the weeks to come are: 

Childcare: the hot topic of the moment.  Why is childcare delivery through Children’s Centres in such trouble?  How much Children’s Centre money is being diverted into supporting unviable childcare within Children’s Centres and what can be done to sort out the financial mess?

Early Years Education:  Reggio vs Phonics.  Have the pedagogues blown their big opportunity, too busy arguing over pet theories to grasp the great opportunity that has been offered to modernise and transform their sector?

Economics: Should Children’s Centres be agents of economic regeneration, facilitating employment opportunities for parents or are they manifestly not a welfare to work scheme?

Health: Why has the NHS got ideological and practical difficulties in engaging with Children’s Centres and what can be done to grab Primary Care Trust’s attention?

Secrets of their success: What makes a successful Children’s Centre and how can this formula be repeated?

Within the next week I will be posting a blog entry expanding on one of these issues.  Please feel free to comment and to suggest additional topics for discussion.