AIBU to think it is ok for our family to use public funded childcare facilities targeted at more disadvantaged families than ours?

[tigermoth]

I live in an area of SE London where there's a high level of poverty and crime. There is also a lot of public funding going into services to help ease the burden on families - ie over 20 new children's centres have opened here offering a range of parenting and children's courses, affordable full time nursery places and creche facilities for parents and young children. There is also investment in children's adventure playgrounds where you can leave older children under the supervision of playworkers.

We are a relatively comfortably off, relatively stable family. Our children are too old for us make use the children's centres, but I will be taking my youngest son, age 8, to the brand new adventure playground tomorrow, with a view to leaving him there for a couple of hours.

Yet really, this adventure playground is not designed for parents like me who fancy a few childfree hours. It is designed to give children who come from less stable backgrounds a place to play safely.

I have also read in the newspaper that children's centres, nationally, are not fulfilling their brief to help families in the hard to reach, poorest, most disadvantaged sectors of the community. The funding is there, the staff are there, but it is often middle class parents who have cottoned on to the fact that these new facilities exist. Some children's centre, in an effort to make use of their funding are offering pilates classes and the like.

Which made me think. Is it right for our familiy to use funded family facilities that are open to us, but are are not really targetted at us?

Course it is. It sounds like your family is similar to mine, but we have accessed local surestart services that we were told were aimed at people living in social housing.

If the facilities are not being used by those they were supposedly aimed at, surely it's better that someone uses them?

(haven't ready any other responses...)

I don;t know much about these centres but I do get the impression that the community projects that work are those where the "target" users feel that they are, not users, but rather partners or owners. It must be a huge challenge for councils/community workers/social workers etc to get something off the ground - and incredibly frustrating when they can't get participation.

it wasn;t part of a govt initiative but I used to go to a fab playgroup - it was on a pretty low income high rise estate with a high number of refugees. the play group was run on the premise that everyone mucked in - not one of those run by some kindly volunteer. guess who went to the play group? of course - inordinately middle class, and mostly white. and despite being by far the best play group I know it has limped along and I keep hearing it's close to closure - probably because it only attracts the white middle class ones who aren;t snobs and/or have had a personal recommendation. all the pthres steer clear because of where it is.

Don't know much about these schemes, but it seems to me that as a taxpayer you should have every right to access the play facilities. Why should you be discrimated against for not being disadvantaged enough!!

TBH I think littlebella has your answer. Both her points suggest that you using the adventure playground is beneficial for the greater good, and as darthvader pointed out also good for your DS's health and fitness levels. So I hope you enjoyed Greenwich Market.

Actually I decided to go to Deptford market and had a very nice, relaxing time, bumped in to some friends I haven't see in years, went for a coffee with them... bliss!

I can really recommend the Greenwich Adventure Playground - Thames Street, just next to the SE10 restaurant if anyone is interested (very quiet road. The facilities indoor and out are top notch The children helped to design the playground themselves, apparently.

Before leaving ds2 I had a chat about play policy with the playworkers. They do have behaviour rules but children are free to come and go. This means I have to trust ds2 to stay there. I know ds2 and I personally feel ok about doing this. He had a fab two hours and we will definitly be using the place again

The kids there seemed to be from all sorts of backgrounds btw - a good mix.

I wouldn't use surestart if I was from outside the area. We have just moved into a Surestart area and I plan on going next week to see what their toddler group is like. It sounds like a great centre (also NW England). I'd like to meet a bigger variety of people, the children dd will be at school with. I guess, OP, maybe your ds will mention it at school and maybe some of the others might want to go? It is a shame that those that need it don't use it. I, too, don't know what the answer is.

I have been going to a local children's centre for a few months now. It is far better than our local toddler group.
In return for being allowed to attend - I volunteered over 5 weeks of my summer holidays to helping the centre run their summer playscheme. This delighted them, as it meant they had another fully qualified member of staff, without putting me on the payroll.

These centres I feel are there for everyone to use. Places may be allocated based on priority, but that need not make people feel unwelcome, just because someone may have more money than someone else. All children have a right to play, a right to early education... regardless of their parent's ability to pay.

Had similar thoughts to Tigermoth. I live in london in a mixed area and am not in the target group but availed myself of the breastfeeding support group and the creche. Both are located in the middle of the quite run down estate near me and staffed by lovely caring people. Every time I have gone they are full of middle class mums.

The conclusion of the workers there is that often the target parents have alot of family support so less inclined to go along whereas often the middle class people are from outside London or from overseas so feel abit more isolated when they have a baby. Who knows. Anyway I went because I figured I have paid my taxes for years and if these things are offered why not - use it or lose it.

Surely this is one of the trade-offs about living in a crappy area? I quite miss all the Surestart stuff happening where we used to live (wouldn't move back there though LOL).

i think the centre would limit places if there was a problem

also its probably healthy for a range of kids/parents to be involved - good for kids social life etc

if you become aware that places are limited then id probably be inclined to leave it for others

They are designed to reach the hard to reach but that is not their only remit. Children's Centres are a resource for all families as it is a fact (and this fact is part of the core offer) that families are time poor and struggling to fulfill the demands of both work and family. Children's Centres and their facilities are designed to ease the pressure of modern day family life for ALL families, particularly the hard to reach.

I was involved with the consultation and steering group for one of the first pilot Children's Centres in Ambleside in the North West.

I agonise about something similar- we have activity schemes here in the holidays. Ds did an animation camp at Easter- it was 3 days with professional animators and 2 helpers in a group of 12 kids and cost £15 all in because these activities are not means tested. Predictably it was full of middle class children. I now hear that the schemes may be cancelled because of lack of funding. I would gladly have paid 4 times that, or more if it would have helped keep the scheme running with subsidised places. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think not using these facilities will help anyone, really.

I think there is a misnomer here that the middle classes cannot fall into the hard to reach category. They can.

I live in Brixton, where there are several children's centres, and they've been invaluable for me...both with DD1 (meeting other mums, getting her socialised with other children) and now with DD2 (a safe place to play for DD1 whilst I feed DD2 and also to keep me sane!). The mix of parents using it DEFINITELY doesn't reflect that of Brixton in general, which is kind of sad - but there still is quite a lot of diversity there. And as other posters have pointed out: if people don't use these services they will close.

I am not sure what the answer to the OP is but have wondered the same thing.

We have a childrens centre in our village and it is primarily us "middle class" mothers using the facilities and the parents it is targetted at do not use them.

Why is my point wrong? If you can afford to pay school fees but don't then you're using up state resources. It is exactly the same point as that raised on this thread about the rich using facilities designed for the poor.

I think actually that bringing stable, well-adjusted children to play with others who are not so fortunate is a GOOD idea. Your children will dilute the atmosphere a little and provide a little emotional stability and normality, and have fun at the same tie. I actually think you are making a socially aware choice rather than the other way around.

If you feel guilty, you could spend time stopping children wandering the streets and telling them about the centre and what they can do there, or stopping tired-looking mothers and telling them. Or make a donation for some toys etc... Or both.

Duchesse if you read my post earlier, you will find, I do tell Targetted Mothers about Children Centres, I even offer to take them,
They cant be bothered.

xenia, if the rich stopped using state schools, the schools wouldn't close through lack of pupils.

(though I do think you highlight an interesting parallel - but not a simple one)

I think xenia does have a point - about it being the same. It's a point that leads most of us to conclude that it's not only ok to use the resources its actively positive. in exactly the same way that many of us who can afford school fees still choose not to pay for them because we believe in equality and integration in education.

Xenia that is such bollocks

there is an ethical argument for not ghettoising the children of more well-off families into the private sector

there is an ethical argument for bringing your highly educated parenting self into the state sector through your children's school and working to improve it to the best of your ability

there is the ethical argument that the more representative of the demographics of the area the state school is the more likelihood of building a community where all members of society, whatever their financial background play a substantial and important role

there is the ethical argument that your children do far better not being protected from people who don't have as much as they are, that they grow up as more rounded individuals

honestly the private / state school debate is as relevant to this debate as fish are to the production of petroleum

you talk such rot at times, its scary to believe people like you actually exist

the issue with surestart is that they were badly conceived, there was an assumption that it would work so it was rolled out nationally at great expense with no thought being given to whether those who are deemed in need of these services want or would be confident to access them

it was a govt policy akin to using a sticking plaster on an amputated limb

twiglet - I agree with all those points. what xenia said about the question of using the resources being essentially the same whether its an adventure playground or a school is, I think right. and certainly made me realise taht the answer to teh OP is that it is ok to them.

sorry hat think there is a huge chasm between taking a child along to a drop-in session or signing up for a short course and committing a child to a path of elitist education

I am not saying private school is wrong, and would consider it for my children but I would hope to do so in full knowledge of the steps I am taking rather than imagining that I am doing the state sector some good by doing so

the education debate is unique, it is not IMHO even relevant to the health debate .. by not sending your children to state schools we can be doing the state sector a huge disservice