The Conference season is upon us, and so the launch of ideas for manifestos rain down upon our ears. Clichés and soundbites abound as the Party Leaders try and outdo each other with their cleverness. The Press is having a field day comparing dull and duller (or as I would suggest Dumb and Dumber). The risk to the credibility of any leader is that he will be hoisted by his own petard of stupid announcements, impossible promises and incoherent policy.  This time, it seems the Early Years is first in the firing line.

The Lib Dems started the ball rolling by announcing £100m capital to spend on building more nurseries for two year olds. Do we really need more nurseries, or shall we just start by filling the ones that are empty from other bad policy decisions? Actually, what we really need is revenue to pay for the places. It was therefore somewhat of an irony when two days later the Government, including the Lib Dems, revealed that £158 million is to be taken from the Early Intervention Grant to fund about half the cost of the Two Year Old programme.

Here is another irony, when the last Government was in power, Local Authorities complained that their ability to spend their funds was far too stymied by ring-fencing.  The new Government came in and responded to the complaints by removing the ring fence and told them that they were all localists now.  Now with this new announcement, a hybrid has emerged with localism and ring-fencing all in the same shrinking pot, with local authorities instructed to spend a % of their Early Intervention Grant to pay for the cost of the Two Year olds. Graham Allen, who wrote two reports on the importance of Early Intervention, has written to the Prime Minister about the impact of reallocating the funds. He is arguing that there has already been a 23 percent reduction in the EIG 2010/2012. Top slicing it further (for example the proposed 17 percent cut in 2013/4) to cover the two year olds will make taking Early Intervention to scale – with evidence based programmes in every locality – much harder if not impossible.

I found all this out on my way to Coventry, where I had been asked to talk about two year olds.  I am not sure of the origin of the saying ‘sent to Coventry’, but it certainly felt a little bit of a punishment reading about these announcements on a two hour journey with London Midland. Frankly, I think the Government could do with spending a little time on the train thinking through a coherent plan before doing anything rash.

During my presentation, I avoided the issue of funding. I focused instead on how we get on with making it happen irrespective of Party Politics. When we get bogged down in a spending discussion, we inevitably get stuck and then any creativity and pragmatism gets lost.

The sad thing is that the policy to offer two year old children from poor families free childcare, although laudable, is a missed opportunity.  Instead, it is more just another bit of tinkering. Firstly, it reaffirms the split between childcare and education (a disaster in itself as it means we affirm said segregation).  The former is seen as a private service to parents who want to work and the latter not only a right for all, but in fact a public good (except it is poorly funded and not universal). This policy was a great opportunity to weave the two into one coherent approach, and do what the much lauded Scandinavians already have: a universal entitlement that complements family life. It could have been the perfect opportunity to stop confusing education with schooling.

So even if we get the £100m to spend in areas of need; if it’s well planned and provides appropriate settings for tiny children, it still won’t be enough. The reality is that some two year olds may end up in schools or hastily cobbled together spaces. What we need to do is take control of this by insisting and ensuring that wherever children are placed, the environment reflects an educational philosophy that provides the best pedagogical experience. The sector needs to avoid being swept up in pre-election manifesto canvassing and show some fortitude and tenacity. We need to take a handle on how we give children really good quality education, no matter where they are.  This means understanding the care element and being able to have pedagogical conversations that explain what we do, why we do it and what it looks like. Leaders must understand what two year olds need to develop, enjoy and succeed.

Let’s not forget the key message from the Olympics, and how it inspired children not just to achieve their potential but to surpass their ambitions. The good leaders of this country might do well to remember this when they are planning their Conference speeches. We know times are hard, but they will be a lot harder if they do not show some moral courage right now.

It’s time our politicians remembered the wise council of Confucius – that great leaders have the courage to do what is right. If they could only heed this, perhaps they would do a better job for our beautiful two year-olds.

I must admit that I was slightly worried about the Olympics. Not quite a naysayer but wary all the same. Like all ex Girl Guides, I had us planning from April and was willing to buy campbeds so staff could stay the night. Fortunately, we needed none of this.  Instead of the increase in traffic we saw a 30% reduction. It was blissful. Public transport was brilliant and everything ran like clockwork. So well done to everyone. Only now, as the first step in the Olympic legacy, please can we keep the same traffic systems so travel and traffic life will never go back to normal?

[gigya src="http://www.flickr.com/apps/slideshow/show.swf?v=71649" width="350" flashvars="offsite=true&lang=en-us&page_show_url=/photos/LEYF/sets/72157631046206392/show/&page_show_back_url=/photos/LEYF/sets/72157631046206392/&set_id=72157631046206392/&jump_to=" allowFullScreen="true" ]

Contrast this time last year; a far cry from the public support and camaraderie of this past two weeks. The same visitors, delighted by this year’s Londoners friendliness, were watching in horror last summer as many young people tried to burn their own neighbourhoods. This year there are no flaming buildings or police in riot gear, but instead London is being congratulated by Olympic visitors for the tolerance and patience of both local citizens and volunteers, not to mention sensitive and effective policing. I’ve just been listening to Luis Fernandez, Deputy Minister of Sport in Brazil on Radio 4, confirm this view of the London Olympics; referring to G4S security management as the only disaster. (Note to UK Government – consider more social businesses for such contracts. Look how well GLL managed their contract at the Aquatic Centre; that would be another great legacy.)

So, better systems to reduce traffic would be one legacy, more social enterprises contracted to run national events would be another legacy. The third would be getting sport and sporting behaviour more effectively embedded in school life. (Ironically, less traffic might mean more children playing out, and so running about getting fit.)

And now physical is a prime subject in the revised EYFS, we better start with the earliest years and the youngest children; it would be good for our staff too.   Either way, given that apparently the whole nation is plagued with obesity, poor attitude, poor spatial awareness and fear of risk and competition, it seems almost a miracle that we ended up third in the medal league with a record 65 medals – our best record yet!

Tessa Jowell, the shadow Olympics minister, has very sensibly called for cross-party consensus on a 10-year plan to build on the public enthusiasm for sport after London 2012:

One of the reasons the Olympics have been so successful in their planning and execution is that all the parties have worked together in the national interest, built a national consensus about how to deliver the Olympics. I think that sense of unity of purpose should be applied to delivering this legacy.

What a good idea; anything that avoids the unhelpful and sometimes juvenile bickering that gets in the way of great ideas. That said, there is already a lot of bickering among the parties about selling off sports fields. I do hope that their idea of a legacy will ensure that every child has the opportunity to play a range of sport and not just fixate on two hours a week chasing a ball around a field. I might have got more into sport if I could have learned tennis or handball instead of the obligatory Camogie, a ball game with the associated elements of kamikaze.

In her comments, Jowell highlighted the wider benefits of sport for children – from improved behaviour, attendance and punctuality to evidence of better academic results. Others link sport and the Olympics with national identity. These may all be true and relevant, but when they are touched by the politics wand, the fairy dust quickly becomes sawdust, as politics always manages to kill dead any spontaneous enthusiasm and groundswell action. My heart sinks when I hear fun activities linked to bigger moral and social forces. It’s probably how many small children feel when showing a painting to the teacher.  She responds earnestly with “Tallulah, how lovely – do tell me all about your painting.” “Oh God,” thinks Tallulah, “just say you like it and let me be.”

So let the legacy be that we held a great event. London was exemplary and preparation counted for a lot. We pulled together and supported the athletes with great warmth and enthusiasm. We watched many young people show us how to be good at something. We recognised the coaches and those quiet supporters that help people achieve. We liked what we saw, and we want more of it; we want our children to be able to do this more easily. Let’s open our hearts and our pockets and make it happen, but leave the grandstanding and the politics on the side-lines.

Getting comfy in Noah’s Ark

The other morning, I watched The Record , a programme on BBC Parliament which gives a daily run-through of key events in Westminster.  Obviously, the interview with Bob Diamond by the Treasury Select Committee featured, and if we were to tag the keywords, leadership was certainly the big hitter.

Questioner after questioner asked Mr Diamond about how he viewed his responsibility for running a company that had behaved so dishonestly.  He was asked if he was complicit or incompetent when he said he knew nothing about such mendacious practice. He was challenged about how bad it had to get before it floated to the top of his inbox and he saw the incriminating emails.  ‘Did your staff not feel able to tell you about this?’ was the question from one incredulous MP.

He argued that once he knew of the mal-practice he dealt swiftly, i.e. he sacked the traders. He was asked what he could do now to reassure the public about the value of the Barclays brand.  He was challenged quite a lot about his stand on culture and how he had not spotted that his culture was going bad. His rebuttals about it only being a small amount of staff etc. were rebuffed and so the questions went on for three hours.

He might have garnered some sympathy had he not continued to refer to the MPs by their first names. In a formal situation, with them calling him Mr Diamond, his persistent use of John, George, Andrea rankled and did him no favours. It certainly didn’t help his apparent credibility. Did he learn nothing from the Fred the Shred debacle?  Leaders must be credible. Weasel words and beating of breasts will not cut the mustard. Mr Diamond failed to acknowledge his duty;  a favourite word of mine and one that needs to come back into fashion.  Indeed, I was so pleased to hear it used on the Radio 4 programme The Moral Maze that I stopped ironing and sent a tweet. (What a choice, ironing or tweeting!)

Personally, I am very proud to be leading a growing organisation, albeit the size of a pin head compared to Barclays. I worry a lot about checks and balances, and how you know that what you say on the tin is still happening when you get further away from the front line.  It must be much harder for a larger company, and I often wonder how places like Sainsbury’s manage. On paper, it’s about things such as leadership, systems, operating manuals, key people practices (hiring, induction, performance management and training), communication and engagement with all customers and staff. In reality, it’s about all of that – but mostly it’s about trust and culture. On that matter Mr Diamond is right.

So, what to do?? Give up and run for the hills?  Mr Diamond can do this with the £95m he has paid himself, but it’s not such an option for the rest of us mortals. You could question and worry to such a degree that you might end up on the psychiatrist’s couch. It might be worth it, if only to join the Billy Crystal school of analysis and end up sharing the couch with Robert de Niro.

On Friday, I was delighted to be able to give the keynote speech to the staff of Rainbow Trust, a children’s charity led by their energetic and committed CEO Heather Wood, and one that provides emotional and practical support to families who have a child with a life threatening or terminal illness.

I am always energised by a good audience and they were great fun, so all in all it was a win-win situation, as I expounded on how good leadership is key if you want to make a difference. It’s a subject I also presented the following day at the Manchester TES Resources conference, and once again it was interesting to get feedback from so many truly committed people, desperate for tips on how to remain good at leading, and at the same time alive and alert to new ways of doing it. I started by suggesting they deserved a star for giving up the only dry Saturday we’ve had of late, or in fact are likely to have in the near future!

On the train back I mused on the more pressing leadership contest in London; yep, the Mayoral and London Assembly elections. Thursday, 3 May gets us a new Mayor (or at least a recycled one), along with 25 London Assembly members. Up to now, I have hardly noticed there even was an election campaign, that was until we had a visit from Harriet Harman and a gaggle of London Assembly candidates to one of our nurseries last week. Clearly some of them need to learn from her polished and experienced performance, and at least try to seem interested. The visit was to raise the importance of childcare to the economy; a subject we have heard very little of so far. Naturally, I have written to both candidates and asked for the re-introduction of the CAP, which Ken introduced during his time in office. Although cumbersome and bureaucratic, it helped women into work by supporting childcare costs, and also offered childcare support to parents whose children are disabled.

So far, what we have seen of this campaign is a few adolescent spats between Boris and Ken, Brian playing the good policeman and Jenny Jones trying to get a voice by being green, not forgetting a few independents – most notably Siobhan Benita, hoping to be elected because she is independent and so above party politics. If only that were enough! She clearly needs to watch more of The Thick of It.

Effective leadership is not about making speeches or being liked; leadership is defined by results not attributes.”

Peter Drucker

Either way, you just have to read their blurb; all grand statements about the usual (transport, fares, housing and crime). And of course, everyone loves an apprentice. To give him his dues, the only one who even mentions childcare is Ken. He suggests grants and interest free loans as well as a campaign against government cuts to child tax credits. But will that be enough to get him our vote, or will Boris’ charm win out once again? Either way it feels like a two horse race. Wrong says my son, apparently Lawrence Webb from UKIP is the bookies favourite! …Lawrence Who??

In stark contrast to last Sunday when I sat in a warm Havana, sipping cocktails and enjoying live Cuban music, today I could only muse on my recent trip which had all the elements of what I consider a good holiday: history, architecture, warmth, music and variety. Of course, the icing on the cake was the constant images of Che Guevara in his prime, undoubtedly the best looking politician ever in my book. Like James Dean and Marilyn Monroe who died too young, he is forever sanctified in his youth and spared the inevitable decline into middle age and all the jowls and paunches that brings.

For years, I have been fascinated by the ability of Cuba to hold off the Goliath that is global capitalism and manage the dislike of so many successive American governments; an island of socialism in a sea of apparent democracy and free enterprise. Being there has not explained everything, but two things did strike me quite forcibly – especially in the light of recent rhetoric from our politicians about finding newer, more palatable forms of capitalism. Firstly, the power of leadership to sustain the will and support of its people despite challenging circumstances. Secondly, the ability to embed the philosophies identified in 1959 by Che Guevara and Fidel Castro et al into a set of practical and effective policies; policies which have led to a highly educated Cuban population sustained on a very limited economy.

Before the revolution, 73% of the population were illiterate. In 1961, two years after the revolution and with the support of young student and already qualified teachers, one million people had learned to read and write. Later on, courses and other necessary steps were taken in a constant effort to bring literacy to 100% of the population, despite a shortage of school supplies, spending 10% of the GDP on education, which is 4 to 5% higher than that recommended by UNESCO.

Wilson and Pickett in their book The Spirit Level (2009) reminded us in no uncertain terms that the more equal the society, the happier the people. This seems to be a principle very much alive and well in Cuba.  Compared to those Latin American countries operating under a more Western influence, it certainly appeared more equal, safer and politically egalitarian. I personally found many things to appreciate, including a complete lack of billboards, marketing messages and advertisements, and the fact that not every street was dominated by shop fronts and that, right or wrong, people knew their history. I also saw children playing until late at night and families feeling very at ease everywhere they went. Cars were few which meant that the speed and stress of traffic was still absent.  No doubt, this is a frustration for the Cuban population, especially outside Havana, as they wait at the side of the road for cars to pick them up. (Car sharing is a must in Cuba and a system is in place to ensure it happens.)  There was chatting and conversation everywhere we went across Cuba, coupled with a real sense of community.

As for education, it clearly counts and is valued: all the same uniforms, all local schools, a national curriculum and life long education free at the point of entry till you die. According to Fidel Castro, the work of education is perhaps the most important thing the country should do.

When we popped into one rural school, the children had far less resources, but they were engaged, learning and calm. Action research is built in as a means of improving teaching and classroom performance, and 20% of teacher time is allocated to helping parents. (In particular, they appear to have recognised the importance of engaging with parents to embed learning at home.)

As we left, all the children stood up and sang us the National Anthem, verse perfect, which amused me no end and was a change from Guantanamera sung everywhere else. Despite the mutual dislike of America, maybe there is some common ground on education, especially if the thoughts of John F. Kennedy still abide:

Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education. The human mind is our fundamental resource.

Congress on Education, February 1961.

Of course, Cuba has still got its issues: it’s hard to get in there and even harder to get out; food is not great and infrastructure poor, whilst some of the horses are far too thin and stray dogs far too frequent. But there are certain things to be found there which we would do well to re-consider. According to Wilson and Pickett, Cuba is the only country in the world that manages to combine acceptable living standards with a sustainable economy, and despite a much lower living income, its life expectancy and child mortality are the same as in the US.

So amongst other things, my recent holiday reaffirmed to me that money and celebrity does not bring happiness, real political engagement is something we must strive for and education counts.

Back home, despite news that child poverty is increasing, numeracy rates remain very poor among adults and the challenge of funding early childcare is picked up by Panorama, the story most read by the public was that Angelina Jolie has exposed her leg in a cut through dress. I rest my case…

Where has the month gone? I am scared by the speed by which our lives pass; it seems we have so little time to make any real, lasting difference. As a result, I have spent most of January talking to people and confirming our plans to really grow the organisation. The Government suggests that we have two alcohol free days a week free.  No chance this month. Neither did I get a chance to attend any of the Samba classes that have been happening across LEYF in preparation for our annual New Year Party this evening, when over 200 of our staff are due to party on late into the night (although I will be gone by 10 ish!).

Outside of LEYF, the world remains a rather unsettled place. The economy is not recovering, the Eurozone is a disaster, child poverty continues to grow as does unemployment among the young. There is an edgy feel about.  The politicians talk about creative capitalism or moral capitalism.  Young people apparently consider the whole thing ‘Peak’. So we have a choice: we sit tight and ride the storm, keep calm and do nothing, whinge, run for the hills or see things like the Chinese do, that every crisis is just as much an opportunity. Interestingly, we have just entered the year of the Dragon: a time for wisdom, strength, benevolence and good fortune.

Back at LEYF, we have decided we can expand our pioneering approach across London. It’s a simple enough model: community nurseries with a range of fees, alongside apprenticeships all wrapped within a multi-generational approach. This ambition is only possible because I trust that LEYF staff will come with me.  We may lose a few people along the way, but that may be right for both them and us; working for a small organisation is not quite the same as a big group or a network of internal franchisees.

Why do it? Why risk upsetting the apple cart? Because we have a duty to share what we do well for small children. Child poverty continues to rise to the detriment of the child, the family and society as a whole. Many people are lost and lonely, so why should we not roll out our way of doing things to benefit many more people?  The bankers and many other private businesses are growing despite often appalling records; they appear to show neither remorse nor a duty of care to their customers. So if we can do something that brings a social good, it is only right that we make the effort to do more of what we already do well.

The risks are immense. Can we keep the quality? Will staff remain motivated? Can we create the right support structure? Will parents abandon us? The signs are that none of this will happen anymore than it would happen in a smaller organisation. The success is having sharp, intelligent, knowledgeable, skilled and entrepreneurial leaders across the organisation, individuals who also come with a natural and clear sense of social duty, coupled with the ability to connect with the community.

It’s probably a big ask, but when 650,000 children across London live in poverty, it’s probably the right question.

As Goethe says:

Seize this very minute; what you can do, or dream you can, begin it; Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.”

Half way up and unable to move, Santa shouted out that from now on he was prepared to eat his five a day, give up chocolate teacakes and large glasses of red wine, whilst joining the local bootcamp on Clapham Common.

“Ha,” said Rudolf chortling, “we have heard that before – it will take more than the fears of obesity to get him to stick to his diet. Anyway, we all know that one glass of red wine reduces the risk of strokes and dementia. No, the only answer is to get the Health and Safety brigade to ban chimneys.”

“Not on your life,” says Chris Grayling MP, “chimneys, decorations, conkers and common sense are all coming back in 2012.”

Back up the chimney, Santa has decided to trust his team led by super leader Rudolf to come up with a plan to release him.  (Leadership is apparently the modern answer for success; nowadays branded as system leadership, we just have to get it right. And with plenty of precedence for getting it wrong, those committees trying to define leadership will need lots of luck.)

Either way, Santa was always sure of a positive outcome, simply as the key holder to the stationery cupboard – a sure fire guarantee that he would be rescued, as Rudolf and the team knew what else was stored in there (and we’re not just talking treasure baskets here).

Scratching his beard, and now covered in soot, Santa contemplated what his look-alike Karl Marx would make of the current economic situation and Eurozone debacle. What would he say to those camping out at St Paul’s or to all the young people who ricochet from anger to despair?  What hope would he give that we can find a new way of doing things?  Would he mock David Cameron’s call that traditional values will save us? In an optimistic moment Marx said that

Experience praises the most happy the one who made the most people happy.”

So to be happier we need to be more equal, less acquisitive and more community minded? “Result!” thinks Santa. “My sack will be a lot lighter and I won’t have to carry so many toys.  I can dump all the PlayStations and join Pink Stinks and rail against all the pink packaged toys for girls.  Social capital here I come! I better join a Time Bank, start volunteering and get a load of apprentices into my workshop: I could become the biggest social enterprise in Lapland!”

Getting colder up the chimney, Santa decided to sing to keep himself calm and rapped out his situation, only to bring more soot on his head. “I will submit this song to Simon Cowell,” he contemplated, “and see if I can be the next winner of the X Factor. On the other hand there is always YouTube.”

So let’s all sing out with Santa:

When Santa got stuck up the chimney,
He began to shout.
You girls and boys, won’t get any toys,
If you don’t pull me out.
My beard is black, There’s soot in my sack.
My nose is tickly too.
When Santa got stuck up the chimney,
Aaachooo, achoo, achoo.

When Santa got stuck up the chimney
He began to yell
Oh hurry please it’s such a squeeze
My sack is stuck as well
Oh dear oh dear it’s cold up here
And Rudolph’s nose is blue
When Santa got stuck up the chimney
Atchoo! Atchoo! Atchoo!

This week has been rather a fest of networking, the most noteworthy of which was one evening and one day attending the Conservative Party Conference.   A Conference virgin, I was unprepared for the sheer intensity of the networking, posturing and positioning among the very male audience. It put me in mind of a quote by Armstrong Williams that ‘Networking is an essential part of building wealth’.

The conference audience was seduced by the charisma of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove,  lapping up their passionate espousals of their pet topics, London and Education.  I was surprised their boyish charm won over such a male audience, but no one would argue (in that hall) against the call to arms to save children and the nation from poverty. Michael Gove spoke eloquently for 40 minutes without notes, praising and celebrating the importance of good schools, successful academies and the development of free schools.  I dropped a note to him afterwards asking that he now replicate the same power and passion in support of Early Years, making sure we mitigate the risk of disadvantage by celebrating great nurseries and committed staff whilst stopping the drain of very small children into schools.

The conference format included panels of real people introduced by ministers or members of their teams which were designed to marry pragmatism with policy.  They were well received, especially young people explaining how they overcame the consequences of previous government policies.  The only thing missing from the panel was social enterprise; maybe next year! Although I do have to wonder how many of us will still be left clinging to the cliff edge of this recession this time next year.  According to Allison Ogden Newton of Social Enterprise London, social enterprises are currently trying to scale the north face of business, which makes them heroic. Christopher Reeve, the original Superman, said a hero is an ordinary individual who finds the strength to persevere and endure in spite of overwhelming obstacles. The Tory Conference seemed to applaud this principle, so let’s hope that a few of us in the world of social enterprise will win out for another year and be there ready to present to all conferences.

On Thursday, we enjoyed an visit from the deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg and the Secretary of Sate for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith where they officially launched changes to the rules . One of our trustees texted me to say we were beginning to collect ministers like Top Trumps.  What I had learned at the conference is that meeting them was of no use unless you could get their ear and interest.

Nick Clegg visits Marsham Street Community Nursery

I was therefore pleased to be able to knobble Mr Clegg and suggest that his Social Mobility policy might need a push to get it more visible.  When it was launched Mr Clegg talked about fairness and the means everyone having the chance to do well, irrespective of their beginnings. He said that

Fairness means that no one is held back by the circumstances of their birth. Fairness demands that what counts is not the school you went to or the jobs your parents did, but your ability and your ambition.”

I suggested that he consider how childcare and Children Centres can be strongly woven into this ambition for fairness and extend the principle of early intervention.

I also used my fast developing networking skills to persuade Iain Duncan Smith to consider our Step into Learning programme, which helps us prepare NEETS for the world of work as part of our growing LEYF apprenticeship offer. He eagerly promised to come back and talk some more.

I finished a long and arduous week judging the Nursery of the Year for the NMT awards. It was quite a positive experience since the five finalists I met – chosen randomly from across England – were passionate, engaged and genuinely keen to give children and parents the best childcare experience possible. This was contrasted by a rather depressing article in the Evening Standard (7^th Oct, Girl is forced to stay at nursery as all primary schools are full).

Ironically, staying in nursery until you are rising six is how we should be operating, not pushing children into school at four and thinking it’s OK; oh how the battle to save children from too early schooling is no nearer to winning. In the meantime, children in Finland happily play at nursery until they are six – and then leave school as the most successful young people in Europe, ready and more capable to take on the world. It seems to me that it’s a wise society indeed that truly values and invests in its nurseries.

Last week I went to the Globe to see my favourite Shakespearean comedy; Much Ado About Nothing.  It was a sterling performance and the wit and banter between Beatrice and Benedict was much appreciated by the very diverse audience.

Still buzzing from the experience, I boarded the train home and, as I began to read the evening papers, fell off the high left by Much Ado into the dark, guilt-ridden space more often occupied by Irish playwrights. The Irish can do guilt big time.  Combine our history and Catholicism and we have set the stage for a guilt fest. But we may be outdone nowadays by the current guilt trip that modern research is placing on parents; and in particular mothers.

It does not take much to make a woman feel guilty. We feel guilty about something from the minute we get up to last thing at night. But nothing can compare to the quality of guilt that wraps around us when we become a parent. So we are suckers for those who can confuse and confound with snippets of research which suggests we are doing some level of damage, especially those parents who choose childcare. Woe betide them!

In the past becoming a parent – and motherhood especially – was seen as a fundamental part of life.  Most people had children, some chose not to and others were tragically not afforded the choice.  The typically central role undertaken by a mother came with varying levels of support from husbands, partners, boyfriends, family, friends and neighbours.  It was also accepted that having children was generally a good thing for everyone, not least because we would have people working to pay our retirement pensions.

These days, with the help of modern science, we are trying to turn parenting into an art form; a qualification, a set of behaviours, skills and attitudes that will ensure our children don’t just thrive and grow up reasonably stable and happy, but will be propelled onto the milky way of success by highly engaged and confident mothers who always know and do the right thing.

In September, UNICEF told British parents that we were hopeless. In her article in the Evening Standard last month, Xbox children? Don’t just blame the parents, Rachel Johnson commented that after coping over the long summer…

… instead of someone patting us on the back and saying ‘well done’ for holding it together (I keep waiting for that to happen), we are told by Unicef that British parents have lost the plot. We are locked in a “compulsive consumption cycle”, working all hours to buy our children “gadgets and branded clothes” as compensation for all the time we’re not spending with them.”

She continued..

How I wish that Unicef had used its funding instead to come up with a sensible, layered report that explained why households with two working parents have resorted to consumer goods as a substitute for spending time with each other. But that would involve an examination of the growth-led, unchecked credit bubble that gave us overpriced houses, trapped buyers in unaffordable mortgages, created a childcare market where fees outpaced Eton College’s, and led the British to work among the longest hours in Europe. Almost all the parents I know do their best but they are a bit tired.”

October produced more research which led Viv Groksop in the Observer to suggest Why parents should stop feeling guilty if they can’t devote time to their toddlers. She was referring to the debate among academics about findings from neuro-scientists on the biological development of children’s brains which was leading to a confused state for parents; mothers especially did not know what to do for the best.  As a consequence, they were being subjected to ridiculous levels of pressure to get things right, leading to unwarranted anxiety and guilt.  In her article, Groksop challenged the interpretation of some of this research which demonstrates the impact on the brain of poor attachment and stimulation at an early age.

The premise of the neuro scientific argument is that poor nurturing of babies, especially continual failure to comfort children in stressful situations, leads to high levels of the stress hormone Cortisol remaining in the child’s body.  This in turn can do sufficient damage to the child’s neuro-endocrine networks to affect their mental and physical health in adulthood.  Dr Aric Sigman added to the debate with a more explanatory article, Mother Superior? The Biological Effects of Daycare (The Biologist, Vol 58 No 3). He recognised the contextual sensitivities of examining the biological impact of childcare, which he believes has been challenged so far within the prism of adult sexual politics and women’s rights that the impact on the child has been squashed.

At this point, I have to declare an interest as someone who has worked with children for over 30 years in a whole range of settings, and now CEO of LEYF. I therefore must try and be even-handed. Of course, I want to say that childcare can do no wrong, but realise that being with other children all day is bound to affect children’s stress.

Dr Sigman goes on to argue that poor attachment, insensitive adults, lack of biological fathers and the age of the child are all factors in stressing children.  But what Dr Sigman has yet to show conclusively – and he accepts there are counter arguments, especially those questioning the transient nature of raised Cortisol levels – is whether stress levels caused by increased Cortisol in partiular has long-term, negative biological implications on the fast growing brain. (80% of the brain is formed by the time the child is 3 years old.) In the meantime, parents continue to feel guilty about the way they are parenting their children, and childcare continues to support those half of all British mothers who go out to work before their child is 12 months old (OECD 2011).

Groksop quotes sociologist Ellie Lee from the University of Kent, who says…

It’s making motherhood into a miserable enterprise when it should be fun and life-enhancing. Also, there is no culture of supporting parents, so they end up thinking, ‘If I don’t do this for my child, no one will’.”

So while academics continue to research the impact of childcare on children, and the Government tries to sort out an economic climate that is squeezing working parents, we might do well to assume this is not Much Ado about Nothing. So let’s use what we know to do the best for parents and children; improve our adult levels of engagement and sensitivities, keep the high ratio we need to ensure this happens, review the environment and start thinking seriously about whether three year olds should be in school.  In fact, only last week I heard that some schools would now be taking two years olds.

Let’s support parents to become part of the debate and get them to back childcare; encourage them to value their own judgement, the same judgement which led them to confidently place their children in a nursery to begin with, and go public with their support for childcare.  Our job is ultimately to help parents follow their own natural instincts: to love their children, converse with them, sing to them and have a little fun by just watching them be children.  The final debate is then less a matter of money, politics or propaganda and more one of time, energy and inspiration for all parents (with guilt finally seen to exit stage left).

It’s always interesting to meet television journalists up close and personal – and that’s exactly what I did on Wednesday, when LEYF Chair of Trustees, Tim Willis and I went to an Acevo Leaders to Leaders lunch.  Robert Peston, Business Editor at BBC was the speaking guest, and I had booked the lunch some time ago, as I had got used to using the Peston daily bulletin to keep me appraised of the unfolding economic drama back in 2008, and I was keen to hear his latest economic analysis, along with his take on the way out of the mess.

Once there, it very quickly became clear how Peston lives and breathes business economics. It was like being locked in a room with an Early Years obsessive!  He pontificated on the 20 years of unprecedented recorded growth, the lending and borrowing boom and its abrupt end in 2007/08, the shrinking bank balance then replaced by a huge growth in the public sector balance sheet.  He described this as the biggest event in his career, one that catapulted him into the limelight; a place he seems eminently comfortable in.

I was very keen to hear his economic predictions.  He started by telling us a lot of what we all know too well: Economics is not a good science and we have to look to history for some guidance; and globalisation creates global problems, but we have national governments, so it is hard to find a balanced way to either respond or influence. In effect there is no quick way out of this.

He continued to predict a less optimistic growth rate than Mr Osborne‘s anticipated 2-3%, suggesting reality is more likely to be nearer 1%.  He reminded us that debt is still 180% ratio to disposable income, whilst the big cost of the bank bailout debt equated to £5000 for every person on the planet.  The most horrible fact was that despite all the cuts, repayment is making little more than a tiny chink in the debt. The reality of economics is that we won’t know if Osborne is doing the right thing until it’s too late.

So his survival tactics were:

The lunch concluded with Preston advising us to re-think our approach; getting smarter and more efficient, whilst supporting the private sector to develop more jobs.
So that means we continue pushing staff to grow occupancy and collect fees on time, we increase the introduction to finance that our CRLD team has introduced for our apprentices, and we take more apprentices to help them into work.  We will also push for a project with A4E to support parents in managing their money and limit the risk of debt.

It was a useful lunch and one which reaffirmed the need to develop, implement and insist on business practices designed to reduce reckless financial behaviour at every level; if left unchecked, this simply puts everything and everyone at risk of disaster.

At LEYF, our core business is delivering daycare for 1500 children each year in our 21 community nurseries; but our core business approach must be working to secure these; and financial rigour is right at the very heart of it.