Bessemer Grange - Turning away nannies

[Belle]

but by that reasoning, should, for e.g., all parents in Southwark accept the free school meals offered up to Year 4 even if they are able to provide their own? Obviously it wouldn't change the policy which is already in place, but I think it's tricky once you start to designate the moral high ground, as none of us would be spotless under a microscope when it comes to perhaps using services we aren't the prime targets for.

[espelli]

Belle the free school meals policy is in the same vein as children's centre services-they are made open access to reach those who refused them when there was a stigma in applying for a hand out (or the process was too complex for some to negotiate). I think my point was really that we are fortunate to have these services available to us, but we also need to be aware that we don't have an entitlement to them and that others may be prioritised over us. I wasn't trying for moral high ground at all.

[Moos]

The debate has turned back towards earning ability, but on p.1 the point was well made by LondonMix, espelli, buggie and others that the distinction is intended to be between those who may need education in childcare and how the system works, like many new mothers of any background but perhaps particularly those in deprived areas, and those who do not, which latter of course should include qqualified and experienced childcarers like nannies.

Peace and much respect to ALL mothers and fathers who make the right job, career and earnings choices for themselves and their families, no matter what that may be. It has truly been said that no-one can have it all.

[furley-yap]

I know parents who pay their own parents (ie the child's grandparents) the going rate for a nanny/childminder because they feel taht its best all round that there is some sort of formal relationship between them so the grandparents feels like they are not being taken advantage of and the parents feel they can instruct on certain things without causing offence (e.g. no indulgent treats normally given by grandparents). So how would that fit in with the scheme of things? Are they nannies? Or are they more than nannies because they are blood relations?

My outreach worker often points out that actually, the parents who use the services more are not those that they were "targeted at", for lack of a better phrase. In fact, its hard to get these parents to come at all which is where the outreach worker comes in. The parents who attend are those who are more aware of child development activities and take a view to get actively involved. In fact, many services would have been shut down due to lack of interest if it wasn't for more "enlightened" parents keeping these services alive.

Dulwich Wood CC has never made it a point to distinguish between more "deserving" parents and "less deserving" parents. A good mix of social backgrounds is what keeps things interesting and the children really don't seem to care who they play with. If a childrens centre is a victim of its own success (which is great, because its fulfilling its mandate), it must still come out with a more considered way of doing things. For example, each CC should already have a monthly parents forum where different issues are discussed, and this would be a perfect arena to debate this. Not to hand down a dictat by issuing leaflets to nannies.

[Belle]

espelli Wrote:

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

> Belle the free school meals policy is in the same

> vein as children's centre services-they are made

> open access to reach those who refused them when

> there was a stigma in applying for a hand out (or

> the process was too complex for some to

> negotiate). I think my point was really that we

> are fortunate to have these services available to

> us, but we also need to be aware that we don't

> have an entitlement to them and that others may be

> prioritised over us. I wasn't trying for moral

> high ground at all.

Sorry - my post wasn't aimed at the points you've made, and I think I tend to agree about some of us having to realise we don't have that entitlement, that there will need to be prioritising of some kind, though perhaps it is crudely done. I was more responding to the kind of sentiment espoused by Zeban "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?" - hence me bringing up the school dinners point - there's a difference between your point and the latter, which is idealistic in my view.

[CCmanager]

Hi...

I thought I would post as I am the Manager of Bessemer and it was my letter re. nannies that has sparked such debate.

I would welcome the opportunity to chat to you espolea and discuss the reasons why this decision was made. My number at the Centre is 02072742520; I would gladly chat to you or meet in person?

I would like to emphasize that nannies havn't been banned from the Centre but that we are trying to accommodate all of our target groups. Within the CC reach area there are over 500 under 5s and my desire is to support as many of them as possible. It is genuinely my aim to see children thrive and to help give ALL children the best start in life. Unfortunately it is impossible to support all the families who so greatly need it when we have such limited space and so we have to look at practical solutions to ensure that those who need it most are able to access what we offer; this hasn't been an attack on nannies I can assure you. It is also not my intention to make assumptions on people's needs and if children need to access our sessions for specific reasons then this can be discussed with our family outreach worker.

Our family outreach worker can meet one to one with parents and carers to discuss individual needs. If it is the case that children need specific support then we can help with this whether they have a nanny or not. I know that my outreach worker would be happy to meet with your nanny to discuss ways that she can support the children's early learning.

We are keen for people to discuss their needs with us so that we can create a service that best meets the needs of the community and so I would encourage you to let us know when you aren't happy so that we can do our best to solve the problem.

One discussion I have had is having a nanny group similar to the childminders group so this may be something that we develop in the future?

Please do get in touch re.this or any other issues

[Carbonara]

I thought SureStart and Children's centres were about helping familes who are struggling with things like parenting, rather than being a source of free leaisure and play activities? Though of course the two are often the same.

It mmust be very hard for the centres to discern priority in a fair way.

[dulwichgirl2]

Very decent note from the centre manager.

The nanny has a choice. She has to admit she needs support OR she can play with your child and invent games and tricks to learn and have fun.

[minder]

dulwichgirl2 - the nanny is probably doing the latter e.g. games, having fun everyday. Just because she's tried to access an activity it doesn't mean she needs support, although I'm sure some mums/families do and that's what the centres were put in place for?

Trouble is with the CC's they advertise so many sessions/activities outside and on websites but they're not all well attended and not by the children/families they are intended for. I've been to sessions (like messy play) and at CC's that only have a handful of people attend.

[furley-yap]

Bravo, minder, my point exactly

[LondonMix]

CCManager, thanks for joining the conversation. In your post you mention the significant number of children you serve as the need to prioritise access while others (not sure if they attend your centre) suggest the services aren't heavily used. Someone earlier in the thread suggested that centres were being forced to show that the service was reaching the target group or faced budget cuts, which is understandable. I suppose spending priorities during a time of cuts should be allocated to programs that most effectively help those in need. Can you shed any light on your situation?

[ClareC]

sophiechristophy Wrote:

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

> 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?!?

Absolutely not!!! It's far easier working than being at home with small children!!! I work 3 days a week in a job that is fairly demanding,I openly admit those 3 days are my easy days! I love the 4 days at home but they are exhausting in comparison!

Apologies I wasn't clear, I meant the easy option in a financial sense! For a large number of people, going back to work is financially much harder than staying at home. Working for very little if any financial gain.

[ClareC]

Of the many reasons to work I suspect no one would do so to pay tax to assist the economy / community ;)

It is in effect what happens with the resulting NI and tax contributions though.

[ClareC]

Belle Wrote:

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

> 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!).

Exactly what I meant, thankyou :)