Sure Start worked. So why is Theresa May out to kill it?
|
Version 0 of 1. We’ve all seen front pages about the continuing degradation of the NHS – be it on waiting times, too few beds, cancelled operations, or doctor shortages. By contrast there has been much less fuss about the government’s purposeful dismantling of the Sure Start network, created by Labour to support families in the early years of their children’s development. The government announced a consultation on the future of Sure Start in 2015. At that point it also suspended Ofsted inspections of children’s centres, supposedly pending the consultation. Inspections, according to Ofsted, drive improvement. They highlight underperformance, and encourage services to be more user-focused and efficient. Ofsted reports provide important sources of information for local parents, for local authorities and for the Department for Education (DfE). If, that is, the DfE wants to know. In the absence of inspections, it would appear it doesn’t. The suspension of Ofsted reviews has an impact – most notably on service monitoring and improvement, but also because they are a crucial source of information for parents. This is an impact the government is seemingly comfortable with; 18 months after the consultation was announced, it is yet to begin. No start date has been announced. Nor have the terms of reference. Last month Caroline Dinenage, the minister for early years, told parliament that the government is “considering the future direction for children’s centres and will provide further detail in due course”. If the Tories are indeed “considering the future direction for children’s centres”, why won’t they be open about what they’re considering? Why won’t they involve the public by way of a consultation? If, as looks likely, the government is willing to let Sure Start die, ministers ought to be explicit about this – and about if and how they have alternative ideas about how to support families and address disadvantage. Will they be replacing Sure Starts with another form of early years support? If not, what should we make of Theresa May’s pronouncements about helping people who are “just about managing” or ending “burning injustice”? The reality is that Sure Start was a groundbreaking success. A commitment to supporting families in the early years of their children’s development shouldn’t have been revolutionary, but it was. When the Labour government announced Sure Start in 1998, the programme was targeted at the poorest 20% of wards in England. From there it grew into a network of 4,000 children’s centres across the country, each dedicated to improving the life chances of young children and the wellbeing of families. Children’s centres offered employment support, health advice, childcare, parenting help – unified service delivery designed to prevent isolation and, ultimately, to reduce the gaps between rich and poor children which, as a growing body of evidence shows, often go on to define lives. Now, after six years of Tory government, it’s hard to imagine what it would feel like were a prime minister to announce a new, universal service designed to reduce poverty and inequality. Instead, the current government seems to be bringing about Sure Start’s demise. It at least ought to be honest with us about why. By April of last year, nearly a quarter of all Sure Start children’s centres had closed; 156 centres closed in 2015 – almost twice as many as in the previous year. The reason this is tragic is that Sure Start worked. A study by Oxford University revealed by the DfE just before Christmas was the most detailed ever conducted on the impact of children’s centres – and it found the centres benefited parents and families who regularly attended classes in poorer areas, contributing to less disruptive home lives, better maternal mental health, and improved social skills among children and adults. It’s understandable that the eating away of early years support doesn’t attract the immediate attention that sky-rocketing A&E waits do, or the closing of a hospital – it’s often not life and death in the same, direct way. But in the longer term, the way that we look after the youngest members of our society, and their families, is just as important to public health, educational attainment, social cohesion and national wellbeing – and says just as much about the kind of country we want to be. |