Remember that 'protected' Sure Start funding?...
It looks like another broken promise by the Coalition.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/
£300m a year lost from early intervention funding. Sure Start currently makes up £1.1billion out of £2.5billion budget but the budget falls to £2.2billion from April 2011.
Ringfencing has been removed so there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Councils to protect Sure Start in cash term whatever Osborne claimed, especially when this would mean that all other services for babies and toddlers would be taking a combined cut of 21% and when they'll be looking to plug other funding holes elsewhere.
And this is doesn't even included the funding they are committed to take from Sure Start to fund more NHS Health Visitors.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/
£300m a year lost from early intervention funding. Sure Start currently makes up £1.1billion out of £2.5billion budget but the budget falls to £2.2billion from April 2011.
Ringfencing has been removed so there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Councils to protect Sure Start in cash term whatever Osborne claimed, especially when this would mean that all other services for babies and toddlers would be taking a combined cut of 21% and when they'll be looking to plug other funding holes elsewhere.
And this is doesn't even included the funding they are committed to take from Sure Start to fund more NHS Health Visitors.
0
Comments
How about educating people that having children is a choice, and one you should only make when you can afford them yourself.
Wouldn't it not be a good idea to find out before saying how it's a good thing it's going..?
The parents may be a lost cause but their children aren't.
Bear in mind that 93% of children's attainment at school relates to factors unrelated to the school they attend ie to do with their family background, deprivation, poor parenting etc. Early intervention with children in such circumstances is likely to be far better value for money than the pupil premium!
Not really, I know its something to do with kids. I have none so arent really interested.
I guess its just some other introduction from the nanny state which costs money for no benefit to most of us.
Your guess is wrong. But hey, you aren't interested in the way the kids in your neighbourhood could impact your life...
Agreed. Sure Start was one of the very few things Labour actually got right.
Well hey I was wrong, at least I admitted I hadnt a clue, instead of googling it and pretending I knew.
I may do just that tomorrow though when i'm less tired.
But I will take some convincing that something that we managed without for so many years is now so important to us all, even those with no children, that it cannot be subject to cuts like everything else.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article2337386.ece
That was in 2007, after it had been running in England for five years. I don't know if that's still the case, but if it is then it's far more pragmatic to use the money on a more worthy cause.
I don't quite get what you mean, as in my area at least there is no question of the many projects supporting the 'early intervention' (which yes you are right is entirely laudible) principle being pulled, and it will continue to dovetail into the excellent work being done within our local schools. I just see the 'pupil premium' as a media-focused irrelevance, much as anything which succesive modern governments have lauded as the best thing since sliced bread, which in reality amounts to a few hundred £'s worth of crumbs, being.
I was talking about the cuts to the Early Intervention Grant for Surestart - I'm not in favour of the Pupil Premium in its current form, it's worthless.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/14/sure-start-children-eary-years
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8199247/Labours-pre-school-reforms-failing-to-raise-standards.html
Interesting. Cheers.
If it's not working, then I can only agree in cutting funding. I must admit a personal worry, as I believe our Family Support Worker (helping us access services for our daughter with special needs) is funded by it.