Bessemer Grange - Turning away nannies

[oimissus]

espolea - if you get hold of the latest Let's Go brochure (libraries normally have it) you should be able to find groups that are targeted towards professional child carers (rather than parents) so your nanny should be able to meet other nannies and childminders in the area. I agree that is important for her. Also, check out ED Tots (sorry, not sure how to do a link) to see what else is going on in the area. I know I saw many childminders and nannies at classes and playgroups I used to go to, and some of those are free (All Saints playgroup for example).

[cactus]

Whilst I do have some sympathy for the OP, and young families of all backgrounds should ideally be able to access some free/low cost activities, I do believe that given the huge budget cuts our local authorities are having to absorb, it's vital that resources are directed towards the most needy.

I agree wholeheartedly with LondonMix, my taxes may well be used to fund a whole host of services that I may never benefit from directly, but others will and I wouldn't have it any other way. I work in a Lambeth Children's Centre, and the parents who attend the various groups do not feel stigmatised, they are accessing a service in the midst of their own community and receiving support where it is needed. Poverty, poor housing, mental health problems and domestic violence/abuse are blighting the lives of so many families, their needs must be prioritised over stay and play sessions for Nannies.

[dulwichgirl2]

I agree with Londonmix too but also have a question for the op.

I tend to think that babies are being paid to care for, stimulate and entertain the little one in their care. Many nannies have become chauffeurs taking children to classes that the parents, of course, fork out for. It is a very easy day for someone just to run around ED taking a child to classes and having lunch with friend nannies and their charges, on expenses. Someone has to say it - people who do this (and it is only a proportion of nannies, let's be clear) are taking the mickey.

Secondly, arguments along the lines of, "we pay tax, too", don't hold water so let's not repeat that tedium.

[dulwichgirl2]

Woops that made absolutely no sense at all.

Obviously I meant "nannies" and not "babies" in the second paragraph.

[Inkmaiden]

dulwichgirl2, you haven't actually asked the OP a question. Your post is also especially irrelevant as the OP was talking about the nanny accessing activities which are free/low cost, not getting her jollies at vast expense to her employer. How do you know the OP didn't ask her nanny to take her children to this activity?

This is an interesting and balanced thread about changes to Sure Start. It would be a great shame if it were derailed so please, please change the record and stop using every thread that has the word "nanny" in it to exercise your own somewhat obsessive views about unscrupulous nannies.

[sunbob]

I think that taking a child to a group would only be easy if you then sit drinking tea and leave them to it. If I were to employ a nanny or childminder I would certainly want them to take my children to groups to have the stimulation of interaction with other children and adults. I don't think that going out to lunch with young kiddies could be described as easy either.

[dulwichgirl2]

Sunbob, I completely agree - taking children to a group or lunch and then ignoring them is not acceptable.

Ink maiden, you are quite right. My question was implied. It is: don't you expect the nanny to be able to entertain your child through imaginative activities at home rather than necessarily being dependent on external stimuli.

[Saffron]

sunbob Wrote:

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

> I think that taking a child to a group would only

> be easy if you then sit drinking tea and leave

> them to it. If I were to employ a nanny or

> childminder I would certainly want them to take my

> children to groups to have the stimulation of

> interaction with other children and adults.

I want that from a nanny too. On the days a week my toddler has a nanny, I encourage the nanny to take her out to groups and other activities. She's a very sociable child and likes that type of interaction.

If some groups prioritise parents over childcare providers, I think it's understandable given our current economic climate.

In the case of the OP, it's a shame if your nanny was enjoying a specific group and now can't go, but there are lots of other free and low cost activities available. If you feel very strongly about equal access, maybe it's something to take up with local government if you're civically inclined?

[Saffron]

oimissus Wrote:

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

> espolea - if you get hold of the latest Let's Go

> brochure (libraries normally have it) you should

> be able to find groups that are targeted towards

> professional child carers (rather than parents) so

> your nanny should be able to meet other nannies

> and childminders in the area.

Is the "Let's Go" brochure just for Southwark? (I'm in Lewisham. Does anyone know if Lewisham has something similar?)

[sunbob]

Posted by dulwichgirl2 Today, 04:09PM

Sunbob, I completely agree - taking children to a group or lunch and then ignoring them is not acceptable.

Sorry not to be clear, that's not what I meant at all. I would never presume that anyone was ignoring a child and I would not judge or criticize anyone for their care/parenting style in any situation. Sorry for any offence caused to anyone reading this thread. I for one relish any little moments that I can get to myself at playgroups, grabbing the fabled sip of 'hot' tea on the rare occasions when both charges are happily ensconced:)

[oimissus]

Saffron - yes, just Southwark. Maybe see if there's something similar in the libraries in Lewisham, or lobby the council to produce something similar! - I found it so handy, lists all sure start stuff, breastfeeding cafes, library baby groups, dad groups on Saturdays, childminder groups, parenting classes - it's a treasure trove!

[Inkmaiden]

Saffron,

Lewisham Sure Start- http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/education/earlyyears/childrens-centres/Pages/default.aspx

Activities for your area-http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/business/tendersandcontracts/tenders/forthcoming-tenders/default/Documents/A1%20September%20-%20December%202012.pdf

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/business/tendersandcontracts/tenders/forthcoming-tenders/default/Documents/A2%20September-December%202012.pdf

[furley-yap]

Just checked with my nearest CC which is Dulwich Wood, so also a Southwark CC. They do not differentiate between nannies and parents, their only stipulation is that only Southwark registered childminders can access their childminders session.

When I mentioned re Bessemer Grange to my outreach worker she was very surprised to hear it and would bring it up in meeting with her colleagues in other CC, so will keep you posted on that.

Personally, I feel that not allowing nannies into sessions where really they stand in instead of parents who cannot be there themselves for whatever reasons (though its usually economic ones where both parents return to work), is a underhanded way of means-testing. BG is sending a message- if you can afford a nanny, it means that you are wealthy therefore please don't come to children centres, take them to Whippersnappers or Gymboree. Now that is fundamentally wrong because it makes a moral judgment on what parents choose to do with their resources.

If like the OP, you and your partner choose to go back to work, to earn money to make a better future for your children because you want to, hence you need to hire a nanny because it makes most economic sense, then only certain community services are available to you. But if you don't choose to go back to work because you are comfortably off or because you just don't want to, and you turn up with your kid, how can you feel that you have the moral high ground to demand admission over a nanny with her charges?!

I am not saying that the CC should not prioritise people who are more in need for these services, for example young parents with little economic power, but to target nannies is wrong. If there is strain on resources or too much demand for services, then put in a first come first served basis or limit ALL users to two sessions per week. Or as many centres already do, create sessions which allow only parents with defined parameters (e.g. young single mothers) to attend.

How on earth is being a nanny or having a nanny supposed to be some measure of worth of whether children can or cannot attend sessions? While we have been mostly harping on about nannies, caregivers etc, we have all forgotten that its the kids that lose out.

PS- I don't have a nanny so its not like I have a vested interest!

[LondonMix]

There is nothing underhand about it nor is it a moral judgement. It is simply a rough approximation for means testing, which is appropriate given the stated aims of the programme. You can't prioritise those most in need as you suggest with a first come first serve policy or by giving everyone equal access to the programme by limitting everyone to two sessions per week. By definition this is not priortising anyone if you think it through...

[Saffron]

Yes, good point, furley-yap: There are different ways to prioritise parents without excluding others. I'm very curious to hear if the outreach worker gets back to you with more info.

Thanks, Inkmaiden for the additional links for Lewisham. xx

[sophiechristophy]

furley-yap - a suggested edit to your post just to keep things fairly represented:

"If like the OP, you and your partner choose to go back to work, to earn money to make a better future for your children because you want to, hence you need to hire a nanny because it makes most economic sense, then only certain community services are available to you. But if you don't choose to go back to work, because you want to make a better future for your children, are comfortably off or because you just don't want to, and you turn up with your kid, how can you feel that you have the moral high ground to demand admission over a nanny with her charges?!

[zeban]

Um furley-lap, what about those that would like to go back to work but their work doesn't pay enough for a nanny or indeed any other kind of childcare, as many many peoples' don't! Gosh, it's not all about choices furley-lap, those who the children's centres are aimed at have very few choices actually!

Like LondonMix said, it's not about moral judgements at all, it's simply a way of means testing. Yes maybe a very black and white means test but a means test all the same which is a very good thing considering there are desperately few resources and they have to be going to those most in need. Families with nannies aren't most in need, simple as- I actually can't see why there's so much hysteria about this. Those who have nannies already have choices that many don't, and access to good childcare that also many people don't. It's not a question of, oh you have a nanny therefore must be wealthy and thus are excluded from community services. Those who have few choices, single parents, parents from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds are most in need of these services. If resources were aplenty then of course there should be equal access but there aren't.

[dulwichgirl2]

Zeban, nicely put. It is indeed about prioritising resources though it is a rather clumsy and arbitrary line to draw.

Lif chances are set depressingly early, especially in london. I don't grudge the non nanny children access to one of these centres. (is it childminders too? A lot of people like to call themselves nannies owing to perceived status and pay, when they are, emphatically, not.

[ClareC]

Two children under 3 in ED, a nanny is cheaper than 2x nursery fees! Doesn't make the parents rich!

Not many people can afford to go back to work with Childcare x 2 to pay, those that can work for very little whilst paying tax and NI at full rate.

If all those in that position took the easy option and stayed at home there would be less money to pay for things such as surestart. The wider picture really does need to be looked at otherwise people simply won't work (or pay tax and NI )

[sophiechristophy]

ClareC - do you really think that staying at home is the easy option? And, do you think that those go back to work do so due to some sense of community in wanting their tax to pay for surestart?!?

[zeban]

Easy option! many people here have openly admitted that working is far easier than staying at home.

And no not many women do make much once they take into consideration childcare but you still make enough to pay for childcare in the first place which is more than others have. If you don't consider yourself rich then fine, no one is saying that, but you certainly do not live in poverty. Furthermore, not only is going to work often easier than staying at home for some women, but they also do it to keep themselves in their career. So whilst being at a financial stalemate they'll still be getting something out of working whereas some women may not have had a 'career' to start with, just low paid menial work.

[Belle]

I don't think ClareC was saying staying at home is the easy option per se - just that it sidesteps the dilemma of whether to work for little or no immediate profit (tell me if I'm misrepresenting you though ClareC!).

[espolea]

Zeban, I think the hysteria is over the fact that previously all was welcome at the activity center, and infact was built into my daughter's weekly schedule, and now it has been abruptly taken of the list because of uncertanty! I think everyone has a valid point, but in my personal circumstance, the nanny approach was my only option, and out of that I only have a little to show for going back into th workforce, so furley-yap has a very valid point from where I am standing.

Answering the question many of you have asked, the letter only addressed nannies, so I can only assume they are the only ones whoms cicrcumstances are changing!

I'm writing a letter to bessemer this week to clarify though, so I will keep u all informed!

[espelli]

It is so sad that these kind of discussions seem to end up being a stand off between those mothers that stay at home and those who go out to work. I think there needs to be a bit of perspective too, having a job that pays enough to employ a nanny (even if there is not much left over after all the additional costs) is very different to not earning as much as a nanny in the first place. People may not perceive themselves to be well off and going out to work only to pay most of what you earn in childcare is hard to justify sometimes but it isn't necessarily one step away from the breadline.

The children's centre wants to support parents and families. It is not making a moral judgement about how wealthy or otherwise anyone is. Nannies are not their focus and so they have limited the number of sessions they can attend to two a week. That is not depriving the children that have nannies - there are so many other things around the area to do and they are fortunate to have a person looking after them who is trained in child development and so should have the skills to devise activities for them in addition to going to activities that are organised. Out of interest how often do people tend to go to children's centre activities? I don't think I went to more than two in a week while I was on maternity leave - did I underuse a fantastic resource or is that about average?

I don't see this as a form of means testing. It is part of a strategy to improve children's lives through increasing their parent's skills in caring for them. Many nannies have more expertise and years of experience in caring for children than first time parents do and they are not targeted by the children's centre for support.

[zeban]

Extrememely well put espelli and I agree with all you have said. It's awful that this has turned into working mothers vs non working mothers, especially as this isn't even a choice for some so count yourself lucky if it is!

espolea, that may be so but sometimes you have to just be flexible, if they've realised they must prioritise then they must prioritise and you will find plenty of other activities on offer. I do not agree with the hysteria about it one little bit. No one is attacking you, your circumstances, or your choices. You are simply not who the children's centre is supposed to be targeting. Wouldn't you rather someone worse off than you and struggling - not just financially-getting the help they need? do you not question why your nanny with her expertise and with the money she is getting paid really has to go to such a centre when she could find so many other ways to entertain and develop your child? I just think your emotions about it all may be clouding your judgement a bit.