Sure Start Children's Centres: targeted intervention?

The link below sets out what children's centres do:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Preschooldevelopmentandlearning/NurseriesPlaygroupsReceptionClasses/DG_173054

Surely it is not beyond the wit of politicians to understand how important these centres  are if we are to tackle parenting issues?  The first wave of centres were located in areas of deprivation and deliberately targeted parents and children in those areas.  Then some bright spark in the last Labour government decided what was required was a huge increase in the number of centres.  The later tranches of centres had a wider geographical remit and before long the  affluent middle-class realised they were on to a good thing and made full use of the facilities, often driving away low income parents who really did need support, but who felt out of place. 

The whole process became target driven, namely numbers led, rather than identifying and concentrating on those in real need.  Attendance at the centres is voluntary.  There must be a legal obligation to attend: to ensure some sense and knowledge is knocked into dysfunctional parents as well as providing a service for the children.  I know, those of a tender liberal, human rights disposition will squeal with outrage, but what is the point of providing services when the main potential beneficiaries go now-where near?   How else can we ensure there is engagement?  (Whilst I am in this vein, I believe it should be compulsory for parents to attend their child's school's parents evenings.)

I have commented before on a playgroup I was involved with, but it bears repetition in this context.  It provided facilities for children from families living in difficult circumstances. Some of the children had major problems of socialisation, were not potty trained and did not know how to play. We had a high staff/child ratio and employed a family liaison officer.   We targeted our clientele. When the premises we used were demolished it had been hoped to move in to the children's centre.  However, the numbers game came into play, the staff/child ratio would have had to worsen and we would no longer be able to target our clientele.  The playgroup closed.

Targeted intervention is what is needed, not a universal system. Again, squeamish liberals will trot out arguments about labeling, provision for all etc. Let them.  We have to tackle the problems and try to give children in deprived circumstances a better chance of commencing primary school on equal terms with the children of  better off families.

Focus on parenting

Close to my home lives a family: man, woman and five children.  None of the children  has in common  with any of the other children the same biological mother and father.

Not far from where I live are a number single parents: mother and child.  It is clear from conversations that for most of the mothers the pregnancy was deliberate to enable them to secure a flat.

I know first - hand of a primary school which held a parents' evening.  Out of the 28 children in the class the parents of only four children attended.

Welcome to a real world, not the world you or I may inhabit, but a parallel world.  Is it any wonder that children who feel unloved  wander the streets, or worse still, are kicked out on to the streets?

I have witnessed at first hand children from broken homes: children who come to school unfed, tired and in no fit state to be taught.

 
Quite how the government plans to mend the 'broken society' I do not know. How will it tackle the problem of feckless, uncaring and unloving parents?

The tragedy is that such behaviour has been condoned for many years.  Governments have condoned it, indeed put systems in place to support and maintain it.

See article below:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024690/UK-riots-2011-Britains-liberal-intelligentsia-smashed-virtually-social-value.html