Another week, another essential column by Rachel Sylvester; this time on the successes and failures of the Sure Start programme. Here’s the key passage on how the programme could encourage social segregation:
“In some cases parents are asked whether they have a garden for their children to play in. The objective is clear – to identify the middle classes. A friend of mine was telephoned by her local Sure Start organiser and asked not to come to baby massage classes any more because she was too posh…
…Of course it’s important that Sure Start reaches the people it was originally designed to help. But it would be ironic if the policy designed to reduce social exclusion ended up building up class barriers in another way. It was, after all, social segregation that in part led to the fate of Baby P and Shannon Matthews.
Middle-class parents send their children to Sure Start activities because they are good. It would be a tragedy if they were turned into ghettos for the poor.” When it comes to social mobility, appearances are very nearly everything. If the class (or, more rightly, the income-) system looks fluid rather than ossified, then it’s more likely that children will work to move up that particular ladder. Of course – as Sylvester points out – it’s crucial that programmes such as Sure Start help those who need them most, but instilling a sense of “us and them” at such an early age seems counterproductive, to say the least.
Comments