To be really cross that David Cameron wants to limit useage of Sure Start Centre to families on low incomes.

[Housewife2010]

I have used them for the last 3 years & the majority of the mothers there are middle class. If they didn't go, the places I go to would be almost enmpty.
I use them a lot and my children have got a lot out of the classes/events there. We may not be poor, but our household income has dropped a lot since I gave up work to bring up our children. It is very helpful to be able to take them to some free classes and meet other local families.

Well bride how wrong are you. Its function is telief and insurance. Its just been hijacked.

CCs should be there to provide practical help and advice for parents of whatever social background and should be freely accessible. Support groups for BF, PND, SN should be available regardless of income.

However, baby massage, music sessions, messy play sessions and the like should be charged for as these are not necessities but luxuries and if you can afford to pay, you should.

And whatver the fuck happened to cradle to grave? What a lie that is. Single mothers, fine. Widows fuck off and pay your own way.

Am v. Cross tonight.

What on earth is the point of baby massage anyway? And should the tax payer be subsidising baby massage for the middle classes?

Or should the Government be considering more efficient, more effective ways of supporting vulnerable families?

Our local surestart centre is mainly middle income families. It has been a godsend for us - sure start helpers were fabulous and helped me through a very worrying period when DS was not gaining weight well and was scared witless by HV (now under doc for weigh in, and doc not concerned, but due to HV attitude I still get him weighed there, so guess in reality HV have caused extra expense to state!). I have no family nearby to help support. SS had baby cafe and new mums group which helped me meet other mums and talk with the SS helpers.

We have done baby massage and rhyme time sessions. There has been no charge for these. If there had been the opportunity to pay for them I would have done so. But as the sure start workers are not specialist baby massage teachers/music teachers, I wouldn't pay the market rate for those classes - otherwise I'd go to the specialist ones.

Equally our library has rhyme time sessions. Should this not be allowed for middle income families?

I am fully aware of the need to reduce the deficit. I'm just not sure how banning middle income families from sure start does this. Surely charging the middle income families would reduce the overall cost of sure start and enable them to continue to provide the service (free to those on lower incomes and charged for those on higher)?

Incidentally I met a CM who was going on cooking courses with a mindee and these were run by SS. If she earns lower income, should she be able to access them for free when effectively the state is subsidising her business/allowing her to provide a better service at no cost to herself. If parents paying her are higher income, would this not seem a bit inequitable?

I reckon I'd be one of the mums that woulkd be stopped form using SureStart. I've spent a lot of time at my local childrens centre but the main focus of the groups I've been to has been support, BF, baby blues etc, not substitute "Gymboree" sessions. Why should I miss out on this what is essentially a lifeline just because we have a higher than average income? I'd happily pay (and have paid) for groups such as baby massage, but being in a higher social class does not make my parenting skills any better or leave me in any less need of support than my fellow mums on benefits. My CC is definitely guilty of not doing much outreach work hence it tends to be frequented by MC parents. But when my HV came for her first visit I was told all about the CC and what was on there, I assunme this is told to everyone inspite of income?

And I can't remember who it was but that was a great post about the nurseries. Around here the CC nurseries are mostly outstanding and private ones all "satisfactory". I can't get a place at a CC but this is partly my fault for not putting my name down after the 12 week scan (). But if I was excluded from the only excellent childcare provision in the area because I earned to much I would be furious.

Barmy - you have no idea what my personal financial circumstances are so you are in no position to dismiss my arguments as motivated by self-interest.

The welfare state was built out of the social compact that grew out of WW2 where posh, middle class and working people had mixed, at close quarters and for long periods of time. Breaking down the preconceptions that some of those with access to power and money had about the workers.

Sadly the Tories cannot stand the idea that 'we are all in this together'. Didn't take them long to drop the pretence.

Our local Children's Centre provide baby massage for targetted groups, i.e. teen mums and mums with PND. Most of these parents have been referred via their health visitor to the centre for these courses. Baby massage is a way of helping mums who have experienced problems with bonding and attachment. It also provides positive touch for the baby who may have missed out on this. Unfortunately these sorts of problems can affect anyone and everyone, not just one class of society.

I think that the Stay and Play sessions that CCs run are basically a way of getting people through the door; it gives workers an opportunity to keep an eye out for anyone who they believe may need help.

With regards to the OP, I have seen one of our CCs which seem to solely cater for the middle classes. Asking for more donations, or ensuring certain classes need to be paid for is the way forward I think!

I'm middle class and we have an apparently good-sounding household income, though an awful lot of it now goes on childcare.

We live in a very small house in quite a poor part of London, and only have a tiny garden. Our childminder lives nearby and the children's centres provide support to childminders and carers as well as to kids.

I had postnatal depression with ds1 and with ds2 I needed help to establish breastfeeding.

The children's centres here are used by parents from both middle and working class backgrounds - I can't afford to take the kids to paying activities all the time.

As for private provision, in relation to childcare, private nurseries in my area cost between 70 and 100 per cent of my take home pay for one child and I have two. The Surestart nurseries charge about 50% of my take home pay and have reasonably paid and trained staff and much higher standards. I totally don't believe the private sector would do this better, and the cases I've heard of where services have transferred to the voluntary sector have definitely been worse for everyone including the kids.

Ah, but you can't possibly have public services doing the job better than the private sector, Elkie. Not under the Tories. It is not allowed. Their reaction will be to shut down the high performing public services and make everyone struggle to find a decent private nursery. No-one's making a fat profit out of nurseries in childrens' centres and that can't be right, in Tory eyes. Think of the poor business owners who are missing out on fat profits!

Getting "middle class" parents to pay for classes would mean they were funding it twice then ? Great !

The parents on benefits who attend our Children's Centre are the ones who keep going outside for a smoke, they could use their fag money to fund classes surely?

Well this is just bloody typical of my luck, I missed out on the older three's babyhood, too busy working, have now been more or less made redundant, doubt i'll ever get another role at the same level again. Thought I'd treat myself to a fourth and final DC and the pug is pulled on all the local activities.
Surely keeping the centrs open and charging unless you bring your benefit book with you would be the better option.
I know teen mums who earn more than most and so called middle class mummies with cut glass accents who are on benefits.

Also dare I say plenty who think they are middle class really aren't, so David Cameron may well be right that he and Sam are in fact.

Am I being unreasonable reading this thread to be depressed by the meanness of attitude and poverty of imagination expressed in so many of the posts by those arguing that the children's centres should close down?

A lot of my local children's centre staff live nearby and many of the centres are linked to schools. A lot of the people who work there are of the community.

I would much sooner that the taxes I have to pay go on supporting other families even when I'm not directly benefiting because I'm back at work full time. I don't think there's many millionaires in my area, and I don't want that support means tested.

And it descends into another benefit bashing thread

usualsuspect - only because a lot of us have got fed up of paying for other people who, if they were honest with themselves, can afford to look after their family through their own efforts...given the loss of a bottle of Merlot here, a piano lesson there.

Or a packet of fags or android phone.

I used the surestart cente with my son when he was younger but for each activity (for example a group of 6 families with children with development delays which was 3 hours one day a week doing activities to help mainly with concentration) I had to be reffered to them by the HV. I also found that the other people there were working class and low income like me. I went to the attached playgroup which is the only thing that seemed open to everyone and it was the same. Maybe it just depends on the area you live in, if it is mainly middle class people then of course they will attend that centre?

I really don't want to upset anyone on here, and have not read the whole thread.

I have a friend who used to babysit, got herself pg and is, with all of her friends benefit Mothers.

They are all of the 19-22 group and I asked my friend recently 'do you use surestart?' She said no. I also questioned whether any of her friends did, she said no.

My childminder however, does. My children have been on trips all over the southeast for a £1. I am not paying for it and have indeed joined them before now.

The people in the know are using Surestart when they could afford the trips. It's really wrong. It wasn't targetted at Mum's who could afford the trips. It was targetted at those who couldn't and how many of those do you think we see on trips...Possibly 2 out of a 52 seater coach.

It's a lovely idea, but the wrong people are using it in my area, including me.

YANBU

Although how do you know that it is the middle class that are attending these centres? I've started to go to my local one (which does not have baby massage/classes or anything like that) and I have no idea of the background of the other mums. Even when I talk to them, we talk about the babies, not whether or not we drive a 4x4, have a giant mortgage and live in a detached house (I only tick one out of three of those boxes).

I think it was MillyR who said make the centres available for wider services. I agree. What's the point of letting these buildings and facilities go to waste? Perhaps it should be a case of local providers should be used for things like baby massage/sing and sign classes. Have regular drop in sessions for health visitors/midwives/GPs.

Someone said that local mother and baby groups were shutting down because of the CC. Er, not where I live. I can't move for M&B groups - although they all close for the summer holidays, hence me going to the CC instead.

Also all this talk of CC nurseries - I didn't even know they existed! It's all private nurseries around here - and it's bloody difficult to get a place and the nurseries know it. One nursery manager was very rude to me on the phone when I enquired, saying I better sort out my work arrangements - and the nursery wasn't even that good

I do think the centres could do a better job of targetting those who need the services (and I don't think it's just those on benefits). I've spoken to so many people who just don't know they exist. They're usually handed something by the HV in the early weeks of having their baby so don't take it in. Perhaps they should have weigh in clinics there (ours are held in the GP surgery - they could easily be in a CC).

I really find it sad that this government is cutting so much which relates to mothers and children. I find myself denying that Cameron is PM because of the damage he will cause to our society. And I'm getting so bored of the "but he has to rectify what Labour did" chants. Yawn. Big corporate profit hungry banks screwed us big time. Yet I don't see any increases in corporation tax, any clampdown on tax evasion (which costs more than benefit fraud at approx £15bn for evasion vs. £1bn for benefit fraud). Sickening.

So these young mothers 19- 22 can't be arsed to take their children to Children's Centre, and the Mums who can, shouldn't go ?

Its no use saying that they are intimidated by the "middle class" Mums who are there. The ones at our Children's Centre that do turn up are a right nasty bunch who don't ever smile and say hello. The "middle class" Mums are always freindly and make an effort to mix.

we have young mums in ours, and what about if you are young but you earn "too much" then would you be allowed to go or not, being in target group of needing support from one way and not from the other? that is the stupid thing if they close it off to people using only one criterea they will shut people out who do need support, just because from one angle they don't fit.

OnEdge, does it not sound like the young mothers simply havent been targetted properly with Surestart?? That they havent been made aware of the benefits to them and their babies? Instead the more educated/ wealthy seem quite content to use a service that wasn't designed for them. I can see why, if spaces are available and it is cheap it is a no-brainer but this should not be at the cost of missing the real targets for the schemes.

As for smoking, yes they could put their money to better use if they thought about it, but that is besides the point. If they are low income and needing support they should get it regardless of their smking habits.

It sounds like somehow these surestart places need to be more closely linked to child benefit, maybe that is where everyone should be sent to collect their first payment, opening eyes to what is available on their doorstep?

Sadly this has descended into another benefit bashing rant by so many, without realising the real importance of such schemes...quite frustrating really.

our local cc centres offewr SALT drop in, baby weigh ins, midwife drop ins, HV drops in, and via an outside charity - support groups. They host CAF meetings, do messy play, healthy eating course, parenting courses, all sorts. My town has been turned down for Home Start charity because of its percived ''afluence''.
But as I have said previously ''affluence'' doesn't prevent you from having a marital breakdown, a mental illnes, a drug or alcohol problem, being the victim of domestic Abuse, having a child with SN, or any of the miriad other reasons which might render one more vulnerable and, therefore by knock-on effect, your children more vulnerable.

None of these factors are easily solved by a person having money to pay for stuff.

As a one-stop shop for parents with young children, I think the children's centres have provided a wonderful service. And no, I am not employed by one. Nor do I have under 5s....