Sure Start Idiots

Sure Start Idiots

by: whmon - 09-10-08 22:15

As a Private Day Nursery provider,I am so annoyed by the amount of 'free' gifts i.e cheap pens, mousemats, calanders, etc I recieve from Sure Start, along with the huge glossy posters I am asked to display in my nursery which advertise the facilities on offer at Sure Start. I get little glossy booklets to give to my parents emblazened with the Sure Start logo, explaining in small detail the benefits of a Private Day Nursery and detailing at length the advantages of Sure Start. I get flyers from them explaining that they offer sing-along-sessions, mother and baby groups, father and toddler sessions, twins clubs, free father and child portraits courtesy of the Father and Chid Officer, I'm asked will I please display them in my nursey?

Sure Start, do you think I am somehow stupid? Why on earth would I want to advertise your competing services on my premises? Let me tell you, everything you send me is immediately binned.

You can only offer services that 'appear' to to so good because of your massive funding, paid for through the nose by me and every other taxpayer. You have now ran this public busisness into the ground through almost criminal negligence of public funds.

So, the first crack in your armour is you getting rid of your cooks in many of your establishments because you can't pay them. That's OK, I've gained a couple of children from you because although I employ a cook, I can manage a business.

Nursery Owners beware! Sure Start will become part of schools provision under Gordon Brown. 2 year olds with their proposed funding will come under the schools umbrella. We have already lost our first 2 year old to a local school who is offering 'pre' pre-school provision 'to secure a pre-school place.'

Get this government out now!

by: Maestro

I do believe that the Tory's are defending the Labour Surestart scheme so a push on the government to get out in this respect would not do much. I may have read wrong though.

The tax credit system is proposed to be improved with increased earning allowance and couples policy which will go in our favour with working parents, this is not under the Labour government I should note. I can not see the proposed funding for 2 year olds as a threat, how do you see it whmon? I would be interested to find out what ratio's they have to keep in schools with this age group.

by: Millie

If they have qualified teacher status - I have seen 1-13 - which I did query.  They had difficulty coping with tired children (no place to rest or snuggle in) pooing nappies and potty training and ill equipped staff. 

Also the proposed funding is a threat - as a childminder and pre-school worker these settings are meant to also advertise childminders for example - but they do not as they want to have the after school children in their setting as this also brings in more financial rewards - and holiday money for out of school clubs.

Its just the governments way of getting parents out to work - and only paying lip service through promoting Every Child Matters - because if they really did they would stop sure start for some and offer mothers money to stay at home with their children (those who want to be that is)

by: Maestro

I thought it was 1:13 for 3-5 year olds, does the same apply to 2 year olds then?

by: Millie

No thats why I queried ratios - whith the setting manager - I think they were reported at the end of the day by a colleague as they had misunderstood the requirements - or so they said!

by: Maestro

Sorry misread what you had written, understand now.

by: whmon

Maestro, the reason I see funding for 2 year olds as a threat is exactly the same reason as 3 year old funding was a threat. Remember when 3 year olds all went to nursery before they were 'stolen' by the schools? The same thing will happen with 2 year olds.

by: whmon

Just read your answer to my post again Maestro. You questioned whether getting labour out would actually help us considering that the Conservatives agree with funding for 2 year olds. My answer is that (please bear with me) the Labour Government have an inaccurate understanding of Marxism which fashions their policies.

Labour 'sell' themselves as some sort of 'peoples party' whereby a Labour vote counts towards the greater good for the masses. The masses being all of those who are either Government employees (including Council workers like Sure Start employees etc.), or who are unemployed etc. The Labour Government find private business to be total anathema as the private business is not wholly contributing to the Labour coffers (this is why Labour will always make things difficult for private businesses.)

Where Labour initially goes wrong is the same reason that Russsia went wrong. Labour believe that an unchecked free market will destroy the economy because Marx said that what would happen would be that big business, through economies of scale would keep getting bigger, while smaller fish would drop out, until finally, only the biggest fish would remain. Marx said that would be the time to worry, when only the biggest fish remained they would put up their formally low prices because they had no competition (then he said there would be a revolution, because all the wealth would be in the hands of the few while the majority went without.) 

Where Russia, and Labour got it wrong is that they somehow believe that Marx agreed with all of this. He did not. He was warning us. One thing he did overlook though, it wouldn't turn out to be business that was our downfall, but government.

It's the Labour government that is getting bigger (got bigger) and stronger. It's the Labour government who will be our downfall.

 The Conservatives however, believe that private business creates wealth because the finances of the business are in the hands of individuals who directly gain or loose by their own business practices. Therefore, things like Conservative support of 2 year old funding will mean that in the event of a Conservative takeover, you can be sure that 2 year olds will not be poached by schools because private business can administer it without making a loss for the country. t

by: Jazz

Quote: 

"The Conservatives however, believe that private business creates wealth because the finances of the business are in the hands of individuals who directly gain or loose by their own business practices."

Yes and woebetide anyone who cannot 'afford to pay their own way' under a Tory government.  Surestart is raising the standard of care in EY, offering outreach to families who desperately need it and promoting the ECM agenda to raise standards of living for all families.

I've been a childminder for 3 years now and have had clients recommended to me by local Children's Centres as well as had parents choose my service over a private nursery and vice versa.  The guiding ethos of Surestart is parental choice of childcare and from what I've seen, our local Surestart has gone out of its way to promote equality of settings and partnership.  Parents will choose for all sorts of reasons.

by: Millie

Hi Tatia

This is quite interesting - I think the ethos of surestart is a good one, as long as it is managed by someone who understands the benefit of childminders, our local one rarely recommends, highlights or filters through business to childminders as they want to fill their nursery section, breakfast and out of school clubs.  I really think it depends on the Manager and their overall agenda.

by: Jazz

I understand that, Millie and am willing to admit I have been spoilt by a very supportive EY team (under Surestart umbrella) and an innovative, exciting children's centre manager.

I'm moving across to nursery management very soon (just waiting for that deadly CRB check) so who knows, maybe I'll soon have a new tune to whistle about Surestart!

by: joshuajones

Sure start is taking money away from organisations that provide a service to families THAT WILL NOT attend a sure start centre.

I work, voluntarily for Home Start, which provide suport for families in crisis, not just poor or disandvantaged families, but all families that need help, irrespective of social standing.

Home Start have had their budget cut, and job losses made, to fund Sure Start and now families are losing out.

Sure Start is not the answer to the worlds ills. It is a part of society, and we should be wary about letting it take over from other alternatives.

by: Millie

Hi Joshuajones

Interesting, I had not thought about how it would affect Home Strart, it must to as Sure Start are trying to poach this business to.  Soon we will all live in domes underground, wear same clothing, eat a pill......sounds like those old Sci Fi films!

by: whmon

It's not just that Sure Start are trying to poach business for themselves, it's also the other government agencies who are helping them. For examle the health visitors and midwives recommend Sure Start to new mums.

Here's anice little example. We were contacted by Social Services who asked us to provide respite care for twin boys for a period of ten weeks, to give the young mother a break. The boys settled in really well and loved coming to nursery. Mum was very happy. However she told us that she was originally offered her ten weeks at the local Sure Start. This being despite the fact that she lived yards from our nursery, that our nursey has a better Ofsted report than the Sure Start and we had been highly recommended to her by people she knew.

Originally, Social Services refused and told her the offer was only available for the Sure Start Centre. She held her ground and told them that she was unwilling to walk the 2 miles to the centre in the rain and snow with the babies, as she couldn't get on the bus with the twin pushchair. Eventually, they agreed. It wasn't because of cost that Social Services were pushing Sure Start, as our fees are actually lower than the Sure Start Centre.

After the ten weeks were up, Social Services came along to see me to review her case. I told them, and Mum told them that the children were very happy. Social Services said that she could have an extended respite period -but only in the Sure Start Cerntre!

by: timmylums

I am still unsure about the true ethos of some sure start children's centres as it appears that money is not a problem, resources are plentiful but are the children really the ones that benefit from all of this. My local centre provides excellent facilities  for local childminders and really does appear to promote this service but the on site child care seems to leave a lot to be desired, although it very welcoming, bright and spacious  it is  staffed  by many young people and volunteers with little motivation  and very few qualifications. knowledge of current policy and legislation is left to the centre manager and the nursery manager admits to knowing nothing about ECM etc.  the main  concern of the management appears to be how things look to visitors and not the actual welfare of the child. With regards to  childcare it  does not appear to reach out to the families that really need it but seems to attract the middle class families who don't want the children to get dirty having fun  and even insist that they are changed out of their own clothes at meal times for fear that they will stain their clothing.  I was under the impression that sure starts aim is to support parents and assist those that may otherwise struggle to  juggle family life and working life but many people who take advantage of the childcare are professional people who have been in employment longer than the centres have been in operation. Although some of the earlier establishments are reaching out to the correct areas of society they appear to be poorly funded and struggle to meet many of their proposed plans and targets. Is it my imagination or is it a case of the newer the centre, the more funding they receive and the better class of people they encourage to use the services.     

by: my only friend is the wind

I agree with most criticism about this Government.  However, local authorities have a huge role to play in all of this.  My understanding is that each authority receive/have a budget for all services that they provide.  From this they are expected (by the Government) to achieve certain goals by specific times at a cost. 

Each Authority in this country has always taken a slightly different approach to national issues which explains why so many of us have differing experiences.  I know from my  experience that My local authority for example, uses a legal team to decypher the complex Government guidelines and criteria attached with grants and funding to ensure that they allocate funding legally but in the way that best suits their own requirements.  There are Sure Start centres in my region but not in the area where my Nursery operates.  The fact that I take funded children makes me part of the Sure Start Partership.  My local authority can not afford to build a Children's Centre in every town and meets Gov requirements to provide these services by using common sense (currently). Here,  Children's centres exist in areas of deprivation but the LA uses private provisions and existing services to meet targets in others.  Many LA's are run by complete Imbeciles and rather than make use of existing proven services they are busy wasting all of our money building new ones - which LOSE MONEY by the bucket load.

And ook at the number of issues that people have with EYFS, some LA's have taken a completely bizarre stance on EYFS and are giving horrendeous guidance to Provisions within their regions.

Recently, my LA contracted out the management of their Creches within council funded Adult Learning Centres across the county to private operators !  Why?  because they don't make any money !!!  In my opinion ALL LA's should be running more of their Sure Start services in this way. 

When we talk about marxist ethos we should consider the role of the LA's within this as they have the final say on how they implement these services.

With regard to funding 2 year olds - on paper we are all f****d.

(I don't really believe this but I've run out of time and have work to do)

by: whmon

You're absolutey right MOFITW, when I said 'government' I actually did mean the way policies are filtered down to the LA's.

I believe that government funding is passed to LA's but is not 'ring-fenced' i.e, the funding is passed to the LA who use their own discretion to distribute it. In the first instance it is spent on their own expenses (EYP services etc) and provision in schools. Schools are funded on the amount of places they provide, not on take-up of places. Therefore, if a school has 100 nursery places, but only 10 actual children, they are funded for 100 places!

Any funding left over is distributed to the PVI sector. Presently, we receive £6.98 per child per 2 and a half hour session, but we've had just over £5 recently.

It's the waste of money coming out of the pot BEFORE it reaches the PVI that is most annoying. For example, our EY team sent out a training document last year (basically, a list of what training was available in the coming year). This was a glossy, ring-bound affair that my partner in the printing business estimated at a cost of £15 per unit. It was postaged stamped at £3.50, so this cost £18.50. BUT, for some reason they send me 3 of everything. I received 3 copies of this at a cost of £55.50! FOR SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN EMAILED AT A COST OF PRACTICALLY NOTHING.

I pointed this out to them, they were shocked, the next issue of the training document was due, they only sent me one. However, they'd gone all out to make it bigger and glossier and heavier than ever before. Postage £5

Still getting 3 of everything else. My EY person hand-delivered me 3 childcare surveys, all of which were absolutely identical other than their titles. Titles being 'Nursery Provision', 'Preschool Provision', and 'Out of Schools Provision'. All had exactly the same questions. It gets worse, because I get 3 of everything I got 3 each of all three surveys, a total of nine surveys all asking exactly the same questions! Furthermore, the EY person was hand delivering thm all over the county!!! Wage costs? Fuel costs? Printing and paper costs? (not least environmental issues.)

Anyway people, all of this is going on, all of the funding is being thrown away before the residue can be shared out between the PVI. Honestly, words fail me.