Bessemer Grange - Turning away nannies

[espolea]

Hi,

I was horribly shocked when my children?s carer came home the other day with a letter from Bessemer Children's centre, stating that they (nannies only) would be de-prioritised and would only have limited access to the centre, (one visit a week!) just because she is a nanny.....!!!

Wondering if anyone else has had that experience? I understand they have had cuts, but why has my childcare choice ended in my children being discriminated because of it?

L

[amydown]

That is outrageous. On what grounds?!?

[espolea]

Because she is a nanny.........she would be prioristed last when booking to attend a session. Because she is a nanny, she can only attend one session a week.

I'm trying to find out if it applys to call carers a like, but by the tone of the letter, it doesn't seem like it!

[Cora]

This is a result of the new surestart priorities I think. My understanding is that they are no longer focusing on supporting all under fives but instead priority groups from the surrounding communities. My guess is that if you can afford a nanny your child is not on the governments priority list. A policy shift across surestart and huge shame for all families of under fives whatever their background and needs.

[Pickle]

Sounds like it has been very badly dealt with.

I used to go to a few Sure Start things when my kids were younger, and often they were a mixture of playgroup and parenting type lessons, so I guess that they could, in theory, prefer that it's parents that are there benefiting from the free education rather than nannies?

[sunbob]

Where my parents live (South Hampshire) its all been means tested for years and is basically open to hardly anyone.

[katgod]

Has been variations in this locally at different events. Seven or so years ago I used to go to a free session at PEckham soft play. You were required to state your postcode. I as an SE22 resident was allowed in but on understanding that if some Se15 people turned up and the limit to the session was reached I would have to leave as SE15 was the priority target for that subsidised session. And LEapers, a highly successful and informative playgroup was closed to the general public and you had to be referred by social services. Understandable with cuts but not an aid to social integration.

[Smiler]

Is similar in surrey, all carers are only allowed to go to one or two specified sessions a week.

As cora says, if you can afford a nanny, you're not who the service is there for.

[minder]

I've been turned away by three places over the last few years (not Bessemer) but another Children's Centre, and two toddler groups (in the North Dulwich/Herne Hill area). It's upsetting, especially as the groups are very empty. All these groups are not free by the way.

Katgod you were lucky you were let in. I remember going to Peckham softplay around the same time and being asked if I lived in SE15. I didn't so couldn't attend the session at all! Tried a couple of times but gave up as travelling on two buses with my mindees wasn't exactly exciting for them to be told at the end they couldn't go in.

[espolea]

Well this is my point, tunring away my carer is a very big assumption as to why I emplyed her in the first place. No one knows why I was forced to choose that type of care over another! More affordable one perhaps?! So why am I deemed as not struggling and forced to use only private services....at least give her the right to use the childminder service!

It saddens me that I work so hard to get back in the wk force for such little return in that respect, and then I get judged for the type of care I've had to choose in order to do so!!!!!

And the ones who suffer are the kids...who miss out on the ativities and their friends!

[espelli]

Espolea I think it is very sad that the budget cuts mean that SureStart children's centres need to be more targeted with their activities and support for parents. The main reason that these centres and services have been so successful at reaching those who really need them is because their open access policy meant that parents who were looking for good quality activities for their children came to those that the children's centres put on. This meant that the parents who needed more support with their parenting did not see children's centres in the same way as other forms of state support offered to them by, for example, social services and also came along.

I do not know your particular circumstances, but the fact that you are able to employ a nanny shows that you are socially aware and able to employ good, high quality childcare for your child. I don't mean you are just financially able, more that you are able to navigate the various tax, insurance and other things required to hire a nanny. Your nanny is probably an experienced child care professional and they are able to provide stimulation and appropriate activities to meet your child's development needs. Sure Start is now having to be targeted at those parents who need support with those things and so while it is a real shame that they are having to make that choice, you can see that they consider nannies to already be aware of their charges developmental needs and therefore not the first in need of the support offered.

A neighbouring borough has had it's Sure start funding cut from 12 million to 1 million and children centres have closed. This action, while sad, may prevent the valuable work they do from being lost entirely.

[amydown]

I can understand that when budget cuts are in place, some form of prioritisation is required to ensure the service is provided to those most in need. However, basing this on the type of childcare appears fundamentally flawed in my opinion.

Am I correct in assuming that a stay at home mum would be given priority to such classes? I know plenty of stay at home mums who can afford to stay at home and not return to work precisly because their husbands have the earning power. On the other hand, the assumption that those who can hire a nanny must be rich enough, isn't necessarily true. The lack of nursery places round here (state or private) means that lots of mums have to consider more expensive childcare options even though they actually go back to work breaking even or even dipping into savings due to childcare costs.

With all the talks of encouraing women to go back to work, you really do have to wonder what else can be done to discourage it even more than the way things are now.

As Pickle says, I think it's been badly dealt with. A proper means-tested system would have been better than basing it on some ill-understood assumptions.

Rant over...

[dul_resident]

Well said Amydown.

[bluesuperted]

This is an interesting debate and the line is blurrier than having a nanny = wealthy. However I can see why they've done it because knowing the high cost of nannies in the area (due to demand and ability to pay) it is probably, in most cases, a pretty accurate proxy for who has the greatest need and who doesn't. If I had chosen to go back to work, a full/part time nanny would have been unsustainable and that does not mean dipping into savings, it means only possible through, say, ?5-10k of debt accruing every year. The situation would also have been tricky with a childminder or nursery but not as bad.

Incidentally, myself and the vast majority of SAHMs I know (and I know a fair number) in SE22, SE15, SE5 and SE21

are not supported by wealthy husbands. Most I know have to be careful about paying for classes and groups and welcome free activities. I personally go to one paid for group (Hummy Mummies) and actually see that as fun for us both, but actually my 'hobby'. Everything else I do is a) outside or at mine/friends' houses or b) free. So think there are stereotypes on both sides and in a time of huge cuts I can see why this rough line was drawn.

[Pugwash]

Sure Start, if I recall correctly, was originally set up as a means of educating parents in child care. They were traditionally set up in 'deprived areas' where mothers could meet with their children, others in similiar situations, and have access to professional help. These centres taught child development, diet, social integration, and at that time, most of the parents would have been described as coming from 'dystfunctional families', or had a lack of parenting themselves. Social Services frequently referred families to these centres as a 'preventative' measure - often to reduce isolation/depression of mothers and to socialise children. Sure Start over the years have developed considerably and became, in many ways, the victims of their own success. In most outer London areas, Sure Start is limited to specific groups - i.e. preventing family breakdown.

[LondonMix]

Well said. Also, as a previous poster mentioned its not a question of wealth but if your little one is receiving quality child care already and if the children live in a home with someone who has the skills to know how to navigate the system. This is almost certainly true for everyone with a nanny even if you aren't wealthy as such. The programme really is meant to give extra support to the most vulnerable and while SAHM's may be mixed group (wealthy, dis-advantaged and everything in between), children with nannies are very unlikely to come from the target group of the programme. It's a very rough way to prioritise but given the additional costs associated with administering means testing and the already diminished budget, I understand, though its clearly unfortunate.

[bluesuperted]

Also, we are not loaded, we get by and have a nice life, so I'm under no illusions we are the target group, whenever I've been to Bookstart etc, I've always felt grateful to have that on offer (un-means-tested) but realised it was a perk of living in a diverse (and deprived) area and not something that was to be expected.

[buggie]

You're right about the original intentions of sure start Pugwash; it was literally to offer all children a sure start in life, many of which are local to here but possibly unnoticed by many of us.

Can't do links on my phone but google "Marmot report children's centres" and it explains it better than I could.

[minder]

espolea - what session or activity was your nanny turned away from? Would be interesting to know.

espelli - the nanny might be an experienced childcare professional but that doesn't mean they should have to stay indoors all the time. She's tried to access an activity for the kids she looks after and then been turned away.

[espelli]

Pugwash, LondonMix and Buggie have explained this much better than I managed in my previous post. My point was really that sure start provides services to support children and they do this through improving the care they receive from their parents and families. A SAHM, regardless of her household's income, may at some point need some support in raising her children and this would come under the remit of Sure Start. If a nanny needs support with looking after her charges it would not. Children's Centres are being asked to ensure that they are reaching the children who are most in need more carefully than previously as they have to justify their funding. Means testing is one way of doing it and prioritising parents attending sessions over nannies is another. Neither is great as ultimately these cuts are affecting children, but it's not Bessemer Grange that is cutting Sure Start's budget.

Minder I have not said that nannies should stay indoors all the time! The Children's Centre isn't the only alternative to being indoors and the nanny hasn't been banned, just limited in the frequency they can go.

[minder]

That's great that Bessemer has all its classes full.

My point is that Every Child Matters.

[LondonMix]

I think we all agree that every child matters but that does not mean that programmes can?t be designed to prioritise children most in need of the services on offer, particularly services designed to give disadvantaged children a leg-up.

minder Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's great that Bessemer has all its classes

> full.

>

> My point is that Every Child Matters.

[Cyberia]

Seems an odd approach to put a ban on nannies, given the aims of the programme. Why ghettoise those who need assistance? They could presumably learn a few childcare tips or techniques from nannies and other experienced childcarers as well as from other mums or the staff at the centre.

Fair enough if that's the policy, but it seems short-sighted to me, and as someone pointed out earlier, also likely to stigmatise. And bear in mind too that it's the children - both those who are isolated in the programme and those turned away - rather than the nannies, who are missing out...

[espolea]

LondonMix, I see your point, but i also believe the social mix of SAHM's you mention is also true with those with nannies these days(speaking from experience).

I'd also like to mention that the children's centers are also an important place for my nanny to interact with those in the same boat as her. Its also important for her to become part of the community, and if Bessemer were able to keep a childminders/carer session on and available to her, she would really appreciate it!!

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and insight, its great to read and digest more than one point of view!!!!

[LondonMix]

I see what you are saying but to afford a nanny (even a nanny share) you need to be earning at least the average salary in London and usually a lot more. While that doesn?t make anyone rich, SAHM include people with little or no job experience / education / work prospects or earning potential in addition to the affluent and average earners you are probably familiar with. However, everyone from a more disadvantaged background will be forced to stay at home when they have children as child care for those on near minimum wage is beyond prohibitive. Hopefully, allowing all SAHMs will prevent the stigma / social-ghetto from forming entirely, while still ensuring the resources are primarily going to those most in need / the target group of the programme.

Regarding, the fact that we are all paying for the service but not all of our children are allowed to use it, if you believe in a progressive tax system that's the reality of it: a portion of your taxes will be used to fund services for those less advantaged than you in an attempt to make society more equal. The more you earn, the less of your taxes will actually go to services / programmes that benefit you directly.

While Sure Start isn't designed / funded for nannies, there is certainly an argument for what you are asking for though perhaps the nannies who post on the forum could take the lead in organizing get -togethers informally on days when Bessemer isn't available to them?