Latest news with #earlyyears
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Momentum to revive Sure Start is long overdue – it's been a lifeline for my son and me
Child health clinics, breastfeeding support, groups for new parents, sleep and weaning workshops, speech and language therapy, drop-in physio sessions, parenting courses in child development and mental health, stay and play sessions (including specifically for dads and male carers), music therapy classes, support groups for women and children who have suffered domestic violence, a housing clinic, groups for children with Send and cookery courses. These are just some of the services available to parents in the borough where I live: Islington, in north London. They exist under the banner of Bright Start, a clever – and I suspect slightly sneaky – rebranding of Sure Start. Sure Start was the Blair government's leading early years policy, offering area-based holistic support to families with children under five in England (it was Flying Start in Wales and Best Start in Scotland). But since 2010, as a direct result of Tory austerity, 1,416 Sure Start centres in England have closed. Now that the child poverty taskforce is to recommend to the Labour government a return of the scheme, I thought that it was worth examining what it's like to live in an area that kept it. I didn't realise that Islington had retained Sure Start until I took my baby to be weighed at the local children's centre after the necessity for home visits ceased. There it was, next to the reception desk: a sign reading 'Sure Start', evidence of what had once been a dedicated service for families not just here, but throughout England. Children's centres offered all kinds of services like the ones listed above, and they also provided childcare to working parents, those in need and those entitled to the free government hours. In Islington, they still do. Of the three closest to where I live, two are rated 'outstanding' and one is 'good'. Childcare is in high demand in Islington, and childcare places aren't allocated on the basis of a waiting list but on a complex calculation based on proximity, the age balance of the existing children in the room and staffing ratios. Priority childcare places exist for those who need them most: looked-after children, children whose families are homeless, children whose parents suffer from mental health problems, children with disabilities and other vulnerable groups. Health visitors and other professionals can refer these children to a panel for consideration. It's one way in which the Bright Start services fulfil their remit of helping the most vulnerable families in the borough, an ethos that underpinned the very reason for Sure Start's existence. I owe so much of my experience of early parenthood to Bright Start. As someone whose family does not live close, feeling part of a community has been vital to my wellbeing and to my son's. Like many others, we do not own our flat and we live in an area where we are increasingly surrounded by millionaires (Islington has lots of very rich people in it, but also shocking levels of child poverty). That feeling of community becomes even more important in such a divided borough. Just knowing that there are people there who can help when things get tough means so much. In the three years since I had my son, we have accessed various forms of support, from health visitor advice to sleep and weaning workshops, not to mention some of the best therapy I have ever had. I highlight these things not to boast, but because it's important to emphasise the postcode lottery of parenthood that exists in the UK. Were I a parent living in a borough without these services, I expect I would feel angry reading about the support that exists elsewhere, because everyone should have access to them. Many local authorities do their best and charities try to plug the gaps, but there is no replacement for fully integrated early years services. The Institute for Fiscal Studies recently found that the positive impacts of Sure Start were widespread and 'remarkably long-lasting', producing better health, education and social care outcomes for families who enrolled in the programme. It may sound obvious, but when services are integrated, they communicate better with one another. Referral pathways are more straightforward; professionals understand the systems they are working in and are able to signpost other services that might help specific children and their families, such as benefits and housing advice. If a child has a nursery place and needs an education, health and care plan for when they start school, the parents do not have to apply for this themselves. Supporting and safeguarding those who are vulnerable is less challenging because, with a proper safety net around them, people are less likely to drop off the map, or to feel that no one is looking out for them. Seeing how these services operate first-hand and benefiting from some of them has been, quite simply, amazing. That's not to say the system is perfect: there are funding pressures and high demand, and gaps in services (to cite one example, Bright Start speech therapists don't work with neurodivergent children, who are on a different pathway. As a result those children, who arguably need it most, don't get any one-to-one speech therapy). Nevertheless, it should be a blueprint for Labour, which should reinstate the scheme throughout England. Certainly, it will be a challenge. Concerns raised by a government source include fragmentation of services and cost as barriers to reinstating Sure Start. Neither is a convincing argument. Reintegrating fragmented services may be a challenge, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing, and the payoff is worth it. IFS analysis has found that Sure Start children's centres in England generated £2 of financial benefits for every £1 spent. We know that supporting the youngest in society from the outset means less pain, less social exclusion and less cost later on. More than that, it is simply the right thing to do. Senior Labour figures should visit one of Islington's children's centres and see for themselves how wonderful they are. Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett is a Guardian columnist
Telegraph
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The nanny state still thinks it can raise kids better than their parents
Sure Start – Blair's early years project and pride and joy of Labour – could be returning to a children's centre near you. According to the government-backed child poverty taskforce, the early-years service might be making a necessary comeback, albeit if the government can find the 'huge investment to do it'. Kick-starting in the early 2000s, Sure Start was sold as government support for needy families – childcare services targeting those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. During its heyday, it did provide families across the country with places to bring their babies that were full of toys and other children to play with. But there's no such thing as a free lunch. Sure Start's catch was big – families weren't simply being offered free resources that they wouldn't have otherwise been able to afford. Instead, the programme was a social-engineering experiment, attempting to remove the influence of working-class parents and instead socialise children via 'expert' intervention from the state. Back in 2005, 18 months after Labour's flagship programme had begun, a government-funded study found that Sure Start was having no success in improving the development of children in deprived areas. In response to the findings, Polly Toynbee wrote a defence of the programme in The Guardian, in which she told parents to 'take a deep breath', as the one change the study had picked up was that Sure Start mothers were engaging in 'warmer parenting'. What did this mean? Middle-class readers could breathe a sigh of relief, as the council-estate mums who had been re-educated at these children's centres were showing signs of 'less hostility, less smacking, less negative criticism and more affection'. The Blair administration's approach to the working class was always paternalistic, but Sure Start took patronising state intervention to insulting levels. Fast forward 20 years, and the current Labour Government seems to want to pick up where Blair left off. Starmer won't give poorer parents any help when it comes to the two-child benefit cap, but he has been excited to announce a national programme of toothbrushing in schools and nurseries, to monitor the dental hygiene of the great unwashed. Let them eat Colgate. While the Left used to understand the importance of a working class independent from the state, many now believe government busybodies know how to raise children better than their parents. Rather than being a helpful resource, the era of 'parenting experts' has trashed any sense of parental authority. I've seen this in real life – mothers attending weaning classes at our local children's centre, anxiously making notes on how many centimetres long the cucumber stick should be when given to a six-month-old. There's no shame in asking for help when it comes to raising kids, but parents today have lost all confidence in common sense, or that they might be able to figure things out for themselves. The more the Government wags its finger at us, the less we feel able to trust our gut. I'm all for government intervention when it comes to cold hard cash. Hackney council, where I live, has recently raised its nursery fees through the roof. Many families will no longer be able to afford to put their children in childcare – even with the free hours – which might well scupper the Government's promise to grow the economy. Opening up more centres and employing more staff is something every parent would welcome. But not if it means surrendering our families to the scrutiny and intervention of the nanny state. Leave the kids – and the parents – alone.
The Guardian
21-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Sure Start centres saved UK government £2 for every £1 spent, study finds
Sure Start children's centres provided £2 of savings for every £1 in costs, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), prompting calls for the government to look at such services as potentially paying for themselves. The centres, championed by the last Labour government, created £2.8bn in savings and revenues at the scheme's peak in England, according to the IFS study. Sarah Cattan, a research fellow at the IFS and an author of the report, said: 'Our work shows that integrated early years services, done well, are cheaper than they initially seem once their benefits are taken into account.' After calculating the benefits for government and individuals, the IFS said: 'We estimate that every £1 of up-front spending on Sure Start generated £2.05 in total benefits over the long run.' The IFS found the positive impacts of Sure Start were widespread and 'remarkably long lasting', producing better health, education and social care outcomes for families who enrolled in the programme offering support for children up to the age of five. Sure Start established 'one-stop shops' initially in disadvantaged areas, from 1999 onwards, with early years, health and family support services under a single roof. It is often regarded as one of New Labour's most successful social policies. The programme was dismantled by Conservative-led governments elected from 2010 onwards. At its peak in 2009-10 Sure Start had 3,600 centres in England, before austerity cuts reduced government funding by two-thirds, with local authorities scaling back or closing most of the centres by 2018. The IFS looked at children born in the 1990s and 2000s who took part, and found it improved health and educational outcomes, including better than expected GCSE results, as well as reducing school absences and less severe special educational needs and disabilities. Nick Ridpath, a research economist at the IFS and an author of the report, said: 'These benefits are not only important in their own right, they also generate savings to the public purse and boost lifetime earnings. Sure Start did not quite pay for itself from the government's perspective. But taking benefits for lifetime earnings into account, in the long run it will generate around twice as much value as it cost.' At its peak, Sure Start's running costs were about £2.7bn a year in 2023–24 prices. The IFS calculated that the government benefited from savings of £600m each year in lower health, special needs and social care demands, and £1.9bn in extra income tax and national insurance revenue. Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion In addition, the IFS said the programme generated a further £3.1bn in higher earnings for each year group who used the centres, equivalent to a £7,800 average boost to lifetime post-tax earnings. Neil Leitch, the chief executive of the Early Years Alliance, said: 'As the IFS rightly points out, this kind of integrated early support has a positive impact not only on the children accessing the services but on society as a whole in the longer term. Clearly, then, investing in quality integrated early years services is not just the right moral decision, but a smart economic choice too.' The researchers warned that Sure Start was not a 'silver bullet', with the programme 'unable to address all challenges that children and young people face'. It noted that it had no significant effect on the number of children spending time in council care and didn't reduce support for more serious special needs provision.
The Independent
12-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Proposed changes to space requirements in nurseries ‘could lead to overcrowding'
The Government's proposals to change minimum space requirements in early years settings to help with the expansion of funded childcare could result in 'overcrowding', a charity has warned. The 'quality of provision' in early years and childcare settings could be affected if the implementation of proposed reforms are not properly monitored, according to the Early Years Alliance (EYA). The Department for Education (DfE) has launched a consultation on possible changes to the indoor floor space requirements per child in the early years foundation stage (EYFS) frameworks in England. It comes as the expansion of funded childcare – which was introduced by the Conservative government – began being rolled out in England in April last year for working parents of two-year-olds. Working parents of children older than nine months are also now able to access 15 hours of funded childcare a week, before the full roll-out of 30 hours a week to all eligible families in September. The DfE consultation is seeking views on whether or not 'free-flow' outdoor areas should be able to be included in floor space measurements for two-year-olds and above. Currently, outdoor areas cannot be included in the EYFS indoor space measurements where indoor activity in a building forms the main part of, or is integral to, the early years provision. Neil Leitch, chief executive of the EYA, said: 'While we recognise that some settings may welcome the additional flexibility that would be created by this change, we remain concerned about the impact that such a policy could have on the quality of provision – and in particular, the risk that these reforms could result in overcrowding in some settings if the implementation, assuming these proposals go ahead, is not properly monitored. 'We're clear that ensuring the safety and well-being of young children must always be at the heart of early years education and care. 'And yet, as we get closer to the final stage of the entitlement expansion, it appears that the need to create new places is constantly being prioritised over and above the need to ensure the consistent delivery of high-quality early years provision.' From Monday, working parents of children who turn nine-months-old before September 1 can apply to access up to 30 hours of funded childcare per week. Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said women would be given added 'freedom' to have more children by expanded government-funded childcare. She told the Daily Mail: 'They will be able to make choices about the career that's right for them, the hours that they want, but also (have) the freedom to think about family size and how many children they want to have, with support from the Government around childcare hours. 'That brings huge benefits to working women and this is a generational shift in terms of the new funding that's been put in place.' Purnima Tanuku, chief executive of the National Day Nurseries Association, said: 'Consulting on the use of outdoor space is a positive step that recognises changes in research and best practice about how children can learn and develop in the outdoor environment. 'It will be important to ensure that this approach is based on best practice and what is best for children. 'There is also a need to review the indoor space requirements because no-one knows how they were defined and have not been reviewed in living memory. 'However, even if providers can increase capacity based on space, providers are still telling us that they need more staff to be able to meet local demand for places.' A DfE spokeswoman said: 'As we deliver on our ambitious Plan for Change to get more children ready for school at age five, we are exploring new ways to help providers offer more high-quality childcare places for working families, that include access to outdoor space. 'Outdoor play provides huge benefits to children, providers strongly support these proposals and the consultation is clear we would include safeguards to prevent overcrowding and to make sure any outdoor space used is high quality and beneficial to children's development. 'This comes alongside over £8 billion in funding, our rollout of school-based nurseries and new early years qualifications to help deliver an early years system that gives every child the best start in life.'
The Guardian
12-05-2025
- General
- The Guardian
Changing space requirements for nurseries in England risks overcrowding, experts say
Plans to change space requirements for nurseries in England to enable them to offer more childcare places are being considered by the government, prompting warnings about overcrowding. The Department for Education has launched a consultation on whether early years settings should be allowed to include 'free-flow' outdoor areas within the required floor space for children aged two years and above. Early years experts are concerned that the pressure to create more childcare places to meet the government's funded childcare expansion plans is threatening to undermine quality. In an earlier survey, nurseries said one of the barriers to expanding their childcare provision was physical space, and in particular the indoor floor space requirements set out in the early years foundation stage statutory frameworks. Currently, each child under two requires 3.5 sq metres, each two-year-old requires 2.5 sq metres and children aged three to five 2.3 sq metres. Under existing requirements, outdoor space cannot be included where indoor activity is integral to the early years provision. The government said its new proposals would enable early years providers to increase the number of childcare places they can offer without increasing the size of their building and support the early years market to meet additional demand for places. The consultation said: 'If any changes are made, it is critical to maintain a safe environment for children. That is why we want to hear from as many people as possible to inform a decision on what to do next.' The consultation opened as the latest stage of the government's rollout of its funded childcare expansion got under way. From Monday, all eligible working parents of children who will be nine months old before 1 September can apply to access up to 30 hours of funded childcare a week. The education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, said: 'Early years is my number one priority, and making sure families are able to benefit from this rollout is a promise made, and promise kept. But this is just the beginning. 'Through the hard work of the sector, supported by our record investment, landmark school-based nursery rollout and focus on vital early learning support, we will deliver an early years system that gives every child the best start in life.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion Neil Leitch, the CEO of the Early Years Alliance, said: 'While we recognise that some settings may welcome the additional flexibility that would be created by this change, we remain concerned about the impact that such a policy could have on the quality of provision – and in particular, the risk that these reforms could result in overcrowding in some settings if the implementation, assuming these proposals go ahead, is not properly monitored.' Purnima Tanuku, the executive chair of the National Day Nurseries Association, said: 'Even if providers can increase capacity based on space, providers are still telling us that they need more staff to be able to meet local demand for places. 'We need to see a fully costed workforce strategy from the government to ensure that the sector can recruit and retain the specialist staff that we know are needed to give children the best start in life.' The space consultation closes on 11 July.
