for being flabbergasted about what the sure start worker said to my friend?

[superv1xen]

she was at a stay and play session with her DC (18 months) and she got TOLD OFF for talking to her friends and not playing with her DS enough wtf!!

since when do they think they can dictate who is and isnt interacting with their kids enough?

i go there so my kids can run and play in a safe enviromnment and i can have a chat with my friends, if any of the santimonious fuckers workers had have said that to me i would have told them where to shove their opinions.

I think it's a mistake to think of this as a class issue. Good and bad parents come from all walks of life. If you were parented badly yourself you might lack some basic skills you're not even aware that you lack.

DD and I went to our local Surestart stay and play sessions for a couple of years. Always found it a supportive and fun place to be. It was professionally run, and yes I did learn a lot (even though I have a degree...).

Maybe they vary a lot in how their service is delivered. The staff at our one didn't come across as patronising at all, maybe some others do.

I know my children go on lots of Surestart trips in the school holidays as they are open to childminders too.

You are right though, they are not coffee groups. It's all about you, personally interacting with the child.

I would never attend one as I feel that I intereact with my children enough at home.

In our area they are thinking about closing them down because they are really popular, but not at the people they were aiming at. You get the whole Boden wearing middle class mummies at ours. They turn up in nice cars and obviously have money to live.

I don't blame the govt' in our case. It's quite wrong and there are loads of toddler groups which have been running for years which are great.

And I don't agree that they are ALL about parents interacting with their own children.

They are also about building social support networks, which are crucial for parents as well as children.

I once got kicked out of our Sure Start Toddler Group because indigo child had taken her shoes off and refused to put them back on again.

We went back once later for free holiday activities (after she had started school) and I'd forgotten their healthy eating policy and got told I had to stand outside (with the smoking mums) or take the fruit juice off my child.

I found that they had good groups and support for issues like breastfeeding. However, although I liked most of the Sure Start Staff, I could never entirely shake off the feeling that I was being watched. I'd put it down to perfectly normal human paranoia until I read this thread....

If I were to have more children, then I don't think I would bother with Sure Start this time around. I preferred the churchy type toddler groups which were run by nice old ladies that just wanted to hand you tea and toast and let you collapse into a chair....

I feel this thread is giving a really misguided impression about SureStart centres. OK, it obviously varies. But I have talked to loads of staff at about 5 different centres (we've been moving around a lot)and not once has teaching people how to parent been on the agenda - unless people actively want that kind of guidance.

Over and over again I'm hearing that it's all about supporting parents in giving their children the best opportunities regardless of their income/circumstances - activities that are carefully planned and imaginative, resources that spark learning through play, safe environments where children can be supported to be independent and so on.

Which is great for us because when we were broke and I was struggling with PND and baffled by my son's behaviour and maddened by my high-needs baby (and all the parenting books in the world weren't helping me) I had a place to go where I knew my kids were going to have a great time without me having to do very much except being interested in what they were doing. I also knew I was going to be able to chat to people (nobody ever told me not to). At mother's and toddlers it was harder work because the activities weren't nearly as intriguing/varied/stimulating so I was going to have to put a lot more work in to keep them interested.

is the OP being unreasonable? well I don't know the full story, the way she puts it yes I would be offended too. But I don't want people to be put off going to SureStart thinking it's some kind of bossy parenting programme as round here it's just some extra nice activity sessions with other help on all sorts of things added in if you want it and ask for it.

Yes, same here BWS. I use mine quite a lot and find the staff members vary. One is particularly bossy and told me off for not having shoes or socks on my non walking 13 month old last winter (he was in a footmuff! And used to take socks off) and does things like heavily hint to parents to take their DCs home for a sleep if they are particularly cranky, but others are less so, in fact most of them are just friendly rather than trying to "help" all the time. There are a few who are there long term and others who are students on placements so have quite a high turnover.

I am flabberghasted that there seems to be a consensus that middle class parents 'know how to play' with their kids. In my experience, I've met many professional, educated parents who find playing with their children extremely difficult, perhaps because they share (consciously or unconsciously) the attitude that play is something for the thick girls at school. I've had many middle-class friends who speak of being 'mind numbingly bored' with 'entertaining' their baby. In clinic, I've met very well-to-do mums who find talking to their baby or toddler something very hard indeed, and are baffled by their child's behaviour and have no idea how to manage it.

People who are less well-off sometimes have far more social support within their wider family and community and have 'play without toys' (simple rhymes, games etc) modelled by those around them and are very, very interactive. It's such a fallacy to assume that money or background makes you better or less able to interact with your child. It also depends on the child you have: a child with additional needs, or who has a particularly difficult or demanding temperament, can stretch the limits of any parents' resources.

"I interact enough with my children at home" is a strange thing to say, I think. It's like saying that you don't/won't/can't talk to your partner when out for a meal because you 'talk to them enough at home'. It's a different setting with different interaction opportunities, more social opportunities etc.
No one should be stuck to their older baby or toddler in these groups, no, but it's not a babysitting group and you can watch from afar and have something to chat to them about after the group, too.

In our Children's Centre, the baby group (0-1) is more of a traditional coffee type group to build support networks for parents. However, the Stay and Play (for older babies/toddlers) is a free for all where, quite frankly, you need to supervise your child because (even if this was their remit) you couldn't expect one worker to supervise upwards of 25+ children running amok.

I find the snobbish attitudes on this thread appalling, tbh. Status does not necessarily make you a better (or even adequate) parent.

I used to lead a messy play group for Surestart and its brief was for encouraging and guiding 'targeted parents' i.e targeted by Social Services.

It was hijacked by middle class mums and nannies but obviously coukldn't be seen to be treating them any differently- so, yes, i would encourage them to get down and dirty with the kids, if they weren't- I hope i was a bit more tactful than OP's friends lady though!

Well my friends and I got told we werent allowed to return to a surestart centre because we were intimidating to the rest of the group

We were breastfeeding and apparently that made us intimidating? They did know that we were a breastfeeding group but because we came in and sat on the floor and bf our babies this made the other mums uncomfortable. There was 5 mums and our babies needless to say we never returned

Which was a real shame because i had used surestart for many of their classes which i had found very very good - baby signing and weaning classes were brilliant but I did always feel like i was being judged

Well my local Sure Start is ok, and has some fantastic play sessions. But most of them are taken over by cliques of childminders.

So I don't see how it can be a resource meant to help parents to play with their kids, when the parents get pushed out and snubbed by the childminders.
Not to mention I've yet to see a parent play with their toddler. They tend to just sit at tables drinking coffee and chatting.

Even when their toddlers are stepping over or trying to hurt the babies. I'm just glad I decided to breastfeed, since the BiBs group is the only one that is just parents and there isn't any of the toddlers running around and stepping on the babies.

Some people are very naive about what sure start and home start are expected to do. I was going to volunteer for home start, it seemed a lovely idea.
The very first session was all about child protection and basically what I was to be looking out for in peoples homes and what I was to report
Some poor woman who was maybe finding things a bit tough and needed a friend would be inviting a she wolf into her house to basically be social services eyes and ears on the ground.
I never went back for session 2, with no training or qualifications in child care or child protection who the hell was I to be reporting people.

Are you joking me, mamatomany?

Every member of the children's workforce has training on child protection and is expected to comply with safeguarding guidance and report on anything suggestive of abuse or neglect.

The whole purpose of safeguarding children is to support families and protect children, it's not about being a 'she wolf', ffs. If you're not prepared to report abuse or neglect or flag up families in need of some extra support you have no business working with kids, regardless of your qualifications

I am a CM and our local sure start centre has a separate session for childminders/nannies/foster carers. We are allowed to go one morning a week and parents, etc go the rest of the week. It's lovely to see adults interacting with children, but it's also lovely to see the children becoming independent. Adults learn a lot of parenting skills by talking to each other at these groups.

Obviously there are some adults who just ignore their children and use it as a social event, but not too many, fortunately.

I'm not surprised in a way racmac if you came as a posse :o

I thought the issue with surestart is that it doesn't actually reach the children it's supposed to? As far as I know the only people who use my local one are CMs and nannies

mamatomany - you ask who are you to be reporting people? Well child protection is everyone's business. They have to train their staff in procedures and recognition of abuse - even if you are a volunteer. Government policy. Everyone who comes into contact with children needs safeguarding training. Just so if something was amiss you could report it. Nothing wrong with being informed surely. Doesn't mean you ar there as some kind of spy.

Dont' want to drag up old arguments but honestly - you can't send people to work with families and then not prepare them for what they might find.

How would I know the definition of neglect or abuse after one hour long training session and since home start is meant to be helping people who may have depression or lots of children they could easily tick the boxes of my idea of not coping without their being any issues at all.

It was not a judgement or responsibility I was prepared to take on so I did bow out.
As I say you are naive if you think you aren't under scrutiny, of course you are and if you don't like it don't go.

fifitot I appreciate that, do people appreciate when they invite a volunteer into their home for a bit of respite that if the dishes aren't done then somebody rather than roll their sleeves up and do the washing up which my natural instinct would be to do, you aren't allowed to do that because the person might become dependent on your help, you are to put it in your report and if there's a pattern of weeks of not doing the washing up the woman would be referred.
Might be the best thing that ever happens to her but she should know that in advance so she can decide.

It is not about being "under scrutiny" ((bang head on wall)).

If you ever had visited homes (as I have in my job), it's not the hour long training that alerts you to who needs help. Several day old pooey nappies on the floor, accessible medicine bottles, sticky carpets that smell of alcohol or wee, preschool children who tell you that their mum's friend lets them have a smoke sometimes (or worse) etc. And all the risk factors that you would have been told about on your training, to boot. It's not rocket science and you don't need a degree to do it.

The idea of 'ticking the boxes' is to alert people to who might need additional help or support above and beyond home start, not a bloody witch hunt. You would discuss it with your line manager who would then advise whether to take it forward (e.g. you saying you were concerned the floor was dirty or that the children only ate processed food would not be considered or any other in the same way that finding a child playing with a used condom would).

It's about common sense, but everyone working with children has to be aware of and willing to report on what they see, it's not about scrutiny or judgement, it's about safety.

Mamatomany - your perception of the role of a Homestart volunteer is very odd and it's probably good that you have decided not to continue. Part of the homestart remit is to support vulnerable families - if you just want to do a bit of washing up and have a nice chat with nice, uncomplicated people, then perhaps a home help role would be more suitable ?

You are right sassybeat and arse it wasn't for me at all and I suspect I should have had more information about the role before even being put on the first training session, wasted everyones time.

Arses and Fifitot, how much training does a person need to enable them to have the skills to spot "recognition of abuse " ?
do you need 1 hrs training ? or 2 ?

To get back to what parents are 'supposed' to do at a Stay and Play session, my experience was that yes, we were expected to keep an eye on our own children and make sure they were behaving and not hurting themselves or other children. This meant trying to keep them at least in sight at all times, even if you weren't directly playing with them.

BUT that isn't the same as being expected to only talk/interact with your own child/children, and no one else at all. That would make for a rather alienating and miserable session for all. Most parents managed to keep a reasonable balance ime.

Also, the workers at the centre were very good at supporting parents who were restricted from running around after their older children by having a small baby. They would take turns to help with the baby, or look after the older children. As did some of the other parents whom they had befriended while they were there.

Also, our centre had separate sessions for childminders, which I think was generally a good thing, although that does depend on numbers etc. I went to sessions elsewhere where there were childminders, and that was a good opportunity to get to know them - useful if you ever want to use a local childminder.

The thing that struck me is that my Gran was very good at telling anyone who didn't do things her way just how wrong they were and she considered children to be her specialised subject despite bringing up two of the biggest fuck ups you could hope to meet.
Put somebody like her in a position of having a checklist and you'd feel sorry for both the line manager and SS who's ears would be bleeding.
But for a time they might take her seriously and that could be damaging for a "client" who just needs a chat and a cuppa making for her once a week.

Oblomov, it shouldn't really be about hours training though, should it? The training merely highlights some indicators but the golden rule is that if you see anything that makes you feel uncomfortable or concerned for a child's wellbeing or safety, you should discuss it with your line manager and follow all relevant safeguarding procedures (usually line managers are the point of call for ensuring you understand and follow these procedures).

You don't need oodles of training to recognise that somethings not right. The one hour of training is just to remind you that you have to follow your instincts and report anything that might be a concern, and outline your obligations. Could you miss something? Yes, of course you could.

However, I work with a wide range of levels of the children's workforce - from dinner ladies to Paediatricians - and people generally understand and act on the need to tell someone if they see or hear anything that concerns them. It's pretty simple: 'talk to a line manager if you see anything that concerns you'. The training just gives you an idea of the broader context and importance of safeguarding, so I don't really see why a few hours training (I think I have only one hour a year?) is any issue at all.

Mamatomany, your Gran might have made a line manager's ears bleed, but the likelihood of that having a negative impact on a child or their parent is pretty minimal. What's the worst that could happen? They send a social worker round who realises there's no case to answer (and you would have to have flagged up some serious concerns for that, in most cases).