"Sure Start 'has failed to boost children's literacy and numeracy'" http://bit.ly/gS7pWA - The Guardian"This quite an admission of something that some of us realised would happen, right from the off regarding Sure Start. It was never intended to be of benefit to the children - it was intended to be of benefit to the State, and in particular to the Labour party in government.
Yes, it was sold as being good for the kids, and would take them off their parents' (often single parents) hands at an earlier age, as does early years learning in general: but the real reason for the scheme was to indoctrinate the sprogs at a very early age, so that they would be most likely to stay with the party line throughout their lives. It was just another way to secure votes and support by compromising our children's natural intellectual development. Literacy? Who cares! Numeracy? They all have calculators anyway, so who needs it!
That's the true agenda behind all these unnaturally low formal education starting ages. Five years old is the right time to start schooling, which is why (along with two-parent family situations) those of my generation and earlier tended to grow up to be better-rounded, more astute and independent-minded individuals than the most recent generation has turned out to be.
Anecdotal evidence from those I know who have used Sure Start and suchlike has confirmed to me what the above Tweet indicates, and more. I cannot be soft-soaped into accepting that there is any merit in the scheme whatsoever, and it would be best scrapped completely and parents again take responsibility for their own lives and the lives of their pre-school age offspring.