Early intervention

Yesterday Sarah Teather, Children's Minister at DfE and Ian Duncan Smith Work & Pension Secretary announced the setting up of a new independent commission into early intervention, which aims to ensure that children at greatest risk of multiple disadvantage get the best start in life.   This will be chaired by the Labour MP Graham Allen (who has previously worked with IDS on a a similar joint review entitled "Early Intervention: Good parents, great kids, better citizens" in 1998).

The earlier report is well worth reading.   Essentially, they suggested that 'early' intervention means within the first 3 years of a child's life.  The earlier report was of course written when IDS was in opposition, but for this Commission to do a further review now interests me for 2 reasons.

Firstly, and I have to declare an interest here, Surestart.  The Surestart programme has been running since 1998 but NESS (National Evaluation of SureStart) found that there was little evidence of positive impact from the first part of the programme (and this was after a great deal of public money had been spent).  It was not until the programme switched to Children's Centre provision after 'Every Child Matters' in 2006, that impact was measurable although the evidence is still patchy and the evaluation is ongoing.  It's also worth bearing in mind that Surestart covers children aged 0-5.  ( http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/).    

The future of the Surestart programme via Children's Centres has of course been the subject of heated debate over the part few weeks with Ed Balls in particular, suggesting that the Coalition government intends to cut and even abolish it.  But if 'Early Intervention' means anything it means Surestart. 

So I 'm wondering whether we are not seeing, with the setting up of this commission, a first step towards a re-organisation of Surestart, possibly narrowing the age criteria and also I suspect the number and type of programmes offered by Children's Centres.   Speaking both as a parent user and Chair of Govs of a Children's Centre, I have to say I would have no problem with this.  When the money was flush, it was perhaps not a problem that the majority of mums accessing services when I attended as a parent, were just like me ie over 30, middle-class.  But let's be honest - it was not set up for people like us.  

Secondly and this is simply an observation, made elsewhere too, that Ian Duncan Smith looks and sounds very different to how he did when he led the Conservative Party.   It renews my faith in human nature to observe how his views seem so entirely different now and that, no longer having any ambition to lead the party or the country, he is freed up to actually make a difference worth making, using research-based evidence and not simply ideology. 

My question I suppose is, was he always like this and was our view of him simply distorted by the prism of media coverage OR following his departure as Leader, did he undergo his own Damascene coversion on the Easterhouse estate in Glasgow?  Either way, he seems an altogether more human politician now and that is surely a positive thing and leads me to be cautiously optimistic about the future of Surestart.

Food as a political issue

During the recent local election in Southwark, Labour made a pledge to introduce free school meals to all primary school children across the borough.  This was unfunded.  They probably didn't expect to win (they weren't the only ones, sadly).  Anyway, they did and now they are trying to find ways to fulfil this pledge or maybe a way of backing out of it while saving face...

Primary schools in Southwark are being invited to take part in a local pilot beginning in September.  Schools taking part will choose 1 year group, those children will be offered free school meals and the school will be offered additional support in working with children, school staff and parents/carers on understanding the benefits of healthy meals on long-term health and wellbeing and maintenance of a healthy weight.  The findings will then be analysed alongside the results of 3 ongoing national pilots (in Newham, Wolverhampton & Durham) to inform the roll-out to all schools in the borough.

Several things about this idea trouble me.  Firstly, the 3 national pilots have been up and running for 1 year already and are being co-ordinated by the DfE, with research ongoing by NCSR , into not simply the issue of obesity but also behaviour, concentration and academic attainment.  The Southwark approach seems a bit of a stop-gap, 'on the hoof' idea with no real focus.  Why do this when a national, properly funded study is mid-way along and will report its findings about 18 months from now?   How is the study of 1 year group per school going to, for instance, inform the Council about the capital investment necessary to enable that school to offer free school meals to all its pupils?   It just seems a bit pointless - as if they have to be seen to be acting on their pledge, so they have come up with this.   In the meantime, it will be increasingly obvious that it is unaffordable and they will be able to say that they tried but the Coalition government policies made it impossible.   

Maybe the real question is why, after 13 years of a Labour government the key measure of child poverty ie FSM take-up, is relatively unchanged in Southwark.

Changing the nappy curriculum

Much as been made today on blogs and in the newspapers about the DfE's proposed review of the EYFS ( Early Years Foundation Stage).   For the uninitiated, this became mandatory for early years providers for children aged between 0-6 from September 2008.  For all the brouhaha it caused at the time, it's not new really.   It replaced 2 earlier frameworks which provided guidance for children aged 0-3 -Birth to 3 matters- and Foundation Stage curriculum which covered children aged 3-6, ie up to the end of Reception class.  One of the aims of the EYFS was to provide a seamless 'curriculum' or framework with age appropriate developmental goals against which a child's progress could be measured.   This is actually important because if a child is not developing within the expected age phases between 0-3 in particular, additional support from external agencies can be sought.  The record-keeping it requires also means that there is evidence to provide to those agencies where necessary.

What many of the articles I have seen today miss is that the EYFS is a framework for learning and it is meant to be PLAY-based.  I stress that because it's easy to characterise it as 'testing for toddlers' when in fact such practice is not part of the guidance and would be considered on any Ofsted inspection to represent very poor practice.  However, it does require appropriate observation of the child and planning in accordance with the child's interests and yes, it requires childminders to do this too.  Why not?  Would we be happy if they simply placed the child in front of a TV all day?  And if not, what do we want and how do we want to monitor that it is taking place?  

As I mentioned above, the EYFS for 3-6 year olds replaced the previous Foundation Stage curriculum and while the themes have changed the 13 developmental areas have remained the same.  Children score points on a scale of 0-9 against these 'curriculum' areas, which sounds very calculating when we are talking about toddlers and reception classes. 

However, it was well established before EYFS a score of 6 points or more across the curriculum areas ie 78 points in total at the end of Reception class, is the best indicator we have of GCSE and subsequent education/career success and life chances.  A score of less than that is almost a clear predictor of educational failure, welfare dependency and in some cases depending on the area involved (eg Personal Social and Emotional Development) can predict how likely that child aged 6 is, to end up in prison.

I for one am happy with the EYFS; it's not easy and it takes a lot of time and effort on the part of the carers or teaching staff involved with those children aged 0-6 but are we saying that those children are not worth it?
And yes, childcare and early years education is not cheap to provide and nor should it be.  We should value the people who put the work into helping our very young children develop a lifelong love of learning.  The question of who bears the cost is another matter for another time.
  

I love the inter-tubes!

Let joy be unconfined!  Sometimes a plan comes to fruition and so it is with great delight that I can relay what BM has been hatching over the past couple of weeks.

Readers may recall that BM is Chair of Govs at a Nursery & Children's Centre and we are due to have our annual Bermondsey Summer Fete in July.  Sensible Footwear initially drew my attention to Old Town and their gorgeous fabric 'Bermondsey in Bloom' as a result of which and after some enquiries, we are now in a position to display that lovely fabric at the Centre during the Fete; along with the Pearly King & Queen sing-along, Punch & Judy show etc and in return we are sending to Old Town some fabric designed by the children when we re-opened as a Children's Centre in the heart of Bermondsey.  Roll on July 17th!

Big society

Okay, first things first: I am married to a councillor and am a school governor, Chair for the past 2 years. So I think I know a bit about my local community and I suspect that it is fairly representative of the national picture. I see no evidence of a reservoir of popular outrage ready to be channelled into progressive action. In my experience as a school governor, people can be persuaded to volunteer for one-off events or to deal with a specific project but the greater the degree of commitment required, the more difficult it is to recruit volunteers. People generally mobilise themselves into action over single issues eg uniting against a building development or a campaign to save a hospital from closure. In many ways, those of us who are school governors are just the same, the single issue being our children's education, only the time frame is extended.

So under Dave's plan, the various public services which are not working will be replaced by these volunteer-led organisations. What he doesn't explain is who is going to police them? A whole support structure exists for instance to ensure good governance of schools and even that's not foolproof. Who's going to vet the volunteers who want to take over a hospital or fire the local Police borough commander? And by the way, I'm not talking about CRB here, I'm more concerned about such organisations being hijacked by those with an axe to grind but not necessarily the skills to match.

And finally, for me the main problem with the whole idea is that it feels suspiciously like a smokescreen to distract us when the cuts come. If we all join hands, get together, feel good about ourselves we won't notice or mind that services we have paid for in taxes are replaced with something a lot less reliable, unaccountable and shambolic.

Ultimately, I want Government to do its job and govern or govern better!