- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@WIRRALGLOBENEWS
All the latest news and views from the Wirral Globe
- Find us on Facebook
Wirral Globe
Like us on Facebook
'Springboard' will improve the lives of Birkenhead children and parents (From Wirral Globe)
Send us news by text, start your message Globe News and your send photos and videos to 80360
'Springboard' will improve the lives of Birkenhead children and parents
12:51pm Friday 28th September 2012 in News By Craig Manning
A GRANT to launch a pioneering school to reduce child poverty has been approved by Wirral’s cabinet.
The scheme – Springboard – will see a free school being set up to teach young people parenting skills and ensure children are ready to take their first steps in the education system.
Birkenhead MP Frank Field, who proposed the project in April, wants to break the “cycle of inter-generational poverty” and improve youngsters’ life chances.
In a report before council cabinet on Thursday, the acting director of children’s services proposed £300,000 of £400,000 set aside for tackling poverty will be given to the project.
Councillors agreed to release £50,000 immediately to Springboard’s umbrella organisation, the Foundation Years Trust, to develop a detailed business plan and carry out a pre-pilot trial run.
A further £250,000 will be awarded if the Trust’s plan is “comprehensive, satisfactory and sufficiently robust” and if the scheme’s goals are clearly set out.
Councillor Tony Smith, Wirral’s cabinet member for children’s services and lifelong learning, said: “I feel it is the right approach to set aside this money for the business plan and I fully recommend it.”
Council leader Cllr Phil Davies added: “It’s important that we invest in early years as it will benefit local people in the long-term.”
The second phase of the pilot would involve 100 families taking part over an 18-month period.
Under the proposals, the school will operate from several centres with its headquarters based at Tranmere Community Centre.
If successful, Springboard is expected to be extended across the country.
Frank Field MP told the Globe: “I am delighted with the Council’s decision to make a grant to The Foundation Years Trust.
"It is an important project using the best evidence to improve children’s life chances.
"Even in tough times, Wirral Council has the courage to back innovative projects aimed at tackling with the causes of poverty, rather than dealing with its consequences."
Comments(31)
JimmyMercury
says...
9:46pm Fri 28 Sep 12
There are other towns in Wirral you know.
Positive thinker
says...
10:07pm Fri 28 Sep 12
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
8:07am Sat 29 Sep 12
Witch Finder General 2
says...
9:59am Sat 29 Sep 12
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
10:55am Sat 29 Sep 12
A strategy and action plan entitled "Roots and Wings" was presented to Cabinet on 13th October 2011 and approved for further consultation and engagement. Meanwhile the March 2012 council Budget made provision of some £400,000 for this anticipated project.
Frank Field made a comprehensive presentation to Cabinet on 12th April 2012 in support of this 'Springboard' initiative, and as a result of all this work, Cabinet agreed last week to release an immediate £50,000 with a promise of the balance if the plan is seen to be "comprehensive, satisfactory and sufficiently robust".
That seems to be fairly adequate scrutiny for this far-sighted and much-needed initiative to break the spiral of deprivation which dogs so many families in parts of Wirral.
Spiffy
says...
1:42pm Sat 29 Sep 12
...
Any idea how Frank Field even has the nerve to publicly denounce "poor parents" as automatically being "bad parents" ? How...in an era of so-called Human Rights & Equality...is it acceptable to anyone for a man who played a major part in the legal enforcement of such corrupt ideology on the rest of us to now cherry pick a few "poor people" as being more equal than others.
...
Any idea why a so-called school costing almost half a million quid...so far...is called "free" ?
...
Scrutiny ? What scrutiny ? Scrutiny has barely begun by the people who are actually paying for it...
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
5:37pm Sat 29 Sep 12
Of course we could all just ignore the problem of the spiral of deprivation, in the hope that it will go away. But of course it won't, will it?
By the way - I don't believe anything Field has ever said automatically equates "poor parents" with "bad parents". But then, I'm probably bias. My parents were poor, as we were, but they were never bad.
David Scott
says...
5:38pm Sat 29 Sep 12
craigot89
says...
9:30pm Sat 29 Sep 12
David Scott
says...
12:06pm Sun 30 Sep 12
For me, the number one concrete change is to improve the job prospects and pay of people of all ages. The biggest effect on that would be from an end to out-of-control immigration. Generally employers and employment agencies don't want to train up local people when they can get as many highly motivated, well educated people from eastern Europe as they want, on minimum wage.
We also need to fix our economy more generally. Leaving the EU would save 150 billion pounds a year, and we would get back to making decisions in the interests of the UK.
ordinary personn
says...
6:32pm Sun 30 Sep 12
Ben - I'd have thought you would have caught on by now - some people like to moan about the effect of poor parenting but when anything is done to try and break the intergenerational cycle they:
.
Whine about how it is so unfair that some people have money spent on them to try and improve their chances in life.
.
Turn to political points scoring and have a go at Mr Field's ideas simply because they don't like him or in Dr Scott (a prospective UKIP MEP) blame everything on immigration.
.
I'm with you - I welcome this initiative and truly hope that it is successful. If it is, we will all benefit in some way, and hopefully it will be rolled out in other locations.
David Scott
says...
6:55pm Mon 1 Oct 12
Spiffy
says...
5:52pm Tue 2 Oct 12
Ben Beaconsfield wrote:Sorry this reply is a few days late, Ben I wasn't expecting a personal quiz but here goes. "Like" doesn't come into it. Frank Field works for us...not the other way around...and I am as entitled to question as anybody else so I do. That simple. To answer the rest of your questions...
What exactly is it you don't like, Spiffy? Is it the lack of a definition of 'poverty'? Is it the concept of 'free schools'? Or, perhaps more likely, is it Frank Field himself?
Of course we could all just ignore the problem of the spiral of deprivation, in the hope that it will go away. But of course it won't, will it?
By the way - I don't believe anything Field has ever said automatically equates "poor parents" with "bad parents". But then, I'm probably bias. My parents were poor, as we were, but they were never bad.
...
1) Yes, obviously. 2) No and dunno why you ask since I didn't mention "concept" but "cost". 3) Never met him so moot point though it blows both yours and OP's little theory of a personality issue right out of the water.
...
You say "we could all just ignore the problem of the spiral of deprivation" as if that is the only other option to this project which is hyperbolic nonsense since there are looooads of projects just like this one, fully-funded and on the, have been for a long time and still are right now. It's certainly not what I have suggested, implied or stated. Behave.
...
I don't believe Frank has ever actually said the words "poor parents are bad parents" either but opening a school specifically to teach a state-approved version of "good parenting" is about as close as he could possibly get to it.
...
You and I know that it is not true but...given his tendency to blame social problems on a "poverty" of everything from Crime and Education to Health and The Price Of Fish...I just don't think Frank knows. He's not acting like it, anyway.
Spiffy
says...
6:31pm Tue 2 Oct 12
ordinary personn wrote:Again, sorry for the late reply and thanks but you misunderstood. It's not a "consideration" I'd like. After all, we all have very different ideas of what we personally consider "poverty" to be.
Spiffy - if you want information regarding what is considered "poverty" have a look at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation website there is a lot of research there that may help you.
Ben - I'd have thought you would have caught on by now - some people like to moan about the effect of poor parenting but when anything is done to try and break the intergenerational cycle they:
.
Whine about how it is so unfair that some people have money spent on them to try and improve their chances in life.
.
Turn to political points scoring and have a go at Mr Field's ideas simply because they don't like him or in Dr Scott (a prospective UKIP MEP) blame everything on immigration.
.
I'm with you - I welcome this initiative and truly hope that it is successful. If it is, we will all benefit in some way, and hopefully it will be rolled out in other locations.
...
For instance, I consider "poverty" to pretty much mean a "complete lack of basic necessities" but definitely not to mean "not enough of everything anyone would like to have...and that a left leaning socialist politician expects low paid taxpayers to remain in poverty to pay for".
...
Hence there needs to be a definition to avoid all that nasty emotional-blackmail stuff that keeps the families paying for these schemes in poverty themselves.
...
We also all have very different ideas of what constitutes "whining". Questioning the actions of a politician charged with a duty...and paid...to act in the best interests of ALL of us and not just a select few ? Nope. Not even close.
David Scott
says...
8:06pm Tue 2 Oct 12
It strikes me that the Council feels obliged to spend hundreds of thousands on this regardless, because the Child Poverty Act 2010 (a last minute gift to the nation from Labour) says they must.
David Scott
says...
9:35pm Tue 2 Oct 12
Mar 14 2012 by Rob Merrick, Birkenhead News
BIRKENHEAD MP Frank Field has announced plans to launch his landmark anti-poverty plan in his own constituency.
Mr Field was asked to write the proposals by Prime Minister David Cameron and they were published 15 months ago.
They included calling for parenting classes, a big shift in funding to a child’s pre-school years and a new index to measure “life chances”.
Mr Field has now accused Mr Cameron of showing little interest in the study – and said he is trying to raise £1m to kickstart his ideas in Birkenhead.
Cambridge University is already working with schools in Birkenhead on better ways to measure how ready children are for school, with plans to involve health visitors and others.
Mr Field also revealed he had written to “some national names” – renowned leaders in their fields – to try to persuade them to get involved.
He said: “We are setting up a trust in Birkenhead so we can implement the report in one constituency and we have got some money already. I am optimistic.
“The key issue is how we measure children’s progress in a basket of abilities at the age of two-and-a-half? That way, if we are spending money and not improving outcomes, we can ask ‘what is wrong?’
“If we can raise £1m, we can do it in Birkenhead – or at least enough to show that, if we can get hands on public expenditure, we can make a difference.
“I have given up hoping politicians are going to do these things but if we can show in Birkenhead that we can do it, then we can say ‘that’s what you could have done with your budgets – and you haven’t’.”
Mr Field’s report, entitled Preventing Poor Children Becoming Poor Adults and published in December 2010, called for:
Parenting classes throughout school life, including an optional GCSE.
A new index of life chances which can be monitored annually, replacing Labour’s focus on income alone.
The option to receive higher child benefit in the pre-school years and lower payments in later years to allow, perhaps, one parent to stay at home.
Parents to be required to attend their nearest Sure Start centre to register for child benefit.
Parents to go through an “initiation ceremony” focusing on their responsibilities and the state support available.
The key finding was that parenting, rather than income or schooling, was the key to a child’s life chances, with those prospects fixed for most youngsters by the time they reached school age.
Mr Field said he has not even spoken to Mr Cameron since completing his work.
He added: “It is a missed opportunity. The Prime Minister has not even seen fit to discuss the report with me, yet it could have been a flagship policy for him.”
A Downing Street spokesman insisted the study was not ignored, pointing to extra help for under-fives, including 4,200 new health visitors to be recruited over the next four years.
He added: “The Prime Minister welcomed this report and its recommendations have informed our approach to ending child poverty by tackling causes rather than consequences.”
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
8:33am Wed 3 Oct 12
Frank Field had rather hoped that the government would introduce a parallel indicator – measuring childhood development at the age of three and five, because his painstaking research shows that this is a more reliable way of predicting whether a child will be poor in adulthood. He argues that If a child falls behind national targets at those ages a whole raft of resources and assistance could be focused on that child, to push it ahead. Frank Field also says that waiting until the child starts primary school would be too late, because evidence shows that schools do not ‘narrow the gap’ as much as could be expected.
What we must remember is that this is only a pilot scheme. As the government has set its face against universal reform along the lines that Frank Field suggested in his original report, perhaps this is a sensible way of dipping a toe into the water – it involves 130 local families and an initial spend of £300,000. In that context, perhaps we should all welcome this ground-breaking initiative.
Who knows, one day it may be referred to as the Wirral Scheme, and people might wonder why it wasn’t thought of years ago.
Spiffy
says...
2:41pm Wed 3 Oct 12
d £250 per week (give or take a few quid). This particular amount also applies to a family of two adults and two children under 14 and the "allowance" reduces...and increases... in relation to family size.
...
It's can also be topped up by various benefits and tax credits and, if it isn't, then perhaps Frank would like to take a closer look at that. If he can spare the time between fundraising and lecturing people on how to bring up their kids, that is.
...
Still, £250 after shelter is taken care of, it's plenty to buy enough food to sustain life and health, for heat through winter months and to clothe the naked bodies of four, wouldn't you say ? So not really "poverty" then and...more importantly...it isn't even Frank et al's "definition of poverty".
...
Not enough to sustain a preferred lifestyle, granted, but since when has *that* been the responsibility of The State...and of low paid working taxpayers striving for a certain lifestyle of their own....to provide ?
...
Also, the amount of cash in a family pocket does not explain the kind of stories Frank touts to try and attract funding. Stories such as; parents not reading to their children, not teaching their children how to use a toilet, wash and/or dress themselves, hold a knife and fork and even...*shock horror*...allegedly never ever addressing their own child by name so that the child knows what it is.
...
All examples of a poverty of Mentality, not cash, and at the sharper end it's Criminal Negligence. Blurring the lines between between "not having enough money to do what you like" and "child abuse" helps no one. Especially not the child.
...
Don't take any of this the wrong way, Ben. I respect your opinions...not least because our discussions consistently remain free from irrelevant personal insult.... but, for me, there's so much about this project that just doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny.
David Scott
says...
10:50pm Wed 3 Oct 12
By David Bartlett on Sep 1, 2010 (in Liverpool Daily Post)
I've spent a few minutes thumbing my way through the index of Tony Blair's memoirs A Journey and it seems Frank Field is one of the only Merseyside MPs to get a mention.
"Not really political astute", is Blair's conclusion about the man who served as his welfare minister for a year.
"Frank used to lock himself away in his office to 'think the unthinkable', but the problem was not so much that his thoughts were unthinkable as unfathomable.
"When I refused to make Frank Secretary of State, he resigned.
"It was embarrassing, and though I both really liked and respected Frank - a genuine free independent spirit - I was also relieved. Some are made for office, some aren't. He wasn't. Simple as that.
"Frank was not really politically astute and it required a lot of political astuteness."
All this comes as Blair describes the mismatch of teaming Mr Field with Harriet Harman (Secretary of State for Social Security at the time).
"The result was a severe mismatch, like a kind of 'dating agency from hell mistake.
"Frank was hugely persuasive on the big picture, but I couldn't seem to get him to focus on the practical policy. Harriet was desperate to be supportive of the policy, without quie understanding that it was her job to devise the **** policy."
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
8:45am Thu 4 Oct 12
ordinary personn
says...
11:04am Thu 4 Oct 12
Re my whining and political points scoring comments– I should have made myself clearer about that, so apologies for that omission. Whining was about people who simply complain – on this thread and others - that certain locations and/or specific sectors of society are having money spent on it/them as opposed to somewhere/someone else. Political points scoring was aimed at the political party reps, including Dr Scott, who has underlined my comment with his later posts. I will endeavour to be more clear in future. :)
Ben – LOL, couldn’t agree more. If I was Frank Field I’d be pretty happy if Tony Blair described me as not being politically astute!
David Scott
says...
11:49am Thu 4 Oct 12
It is consistent with what Blair says that Cameron gave Frank Field a similar task ('poverty czar') and then, apparently, cast him off.
My main concerns (similar to many made by others above) are: (1) there is too much certainty about the effectiveness of Frank Field's remedies for 'poverty'; (2) it is not clear how what is proposed would fit with what is already done in supporting parents and families in the area; (3) 'early interventions' is a bit of a fashion - the influence of parents on their children continues indefinitely; (4) WBC seem a bit gullible.
Spiffy
says...
12:10pm Thu 4 Oct 12
ordinary personn wrote:OP - No, I am not being "disingenuous", "positivist", "realitivist" or anything else you want to call it. I'll try to clarify...
Spiffy – no I did not understand. As you put it yourself (and with which I agree) “we all have very different ideas of what we personally consider poverty to be”, therefore, the logical conclusion from your argument is that there can never be “a universally accepted definition of poverty”. But I guess that an intelligent person like yourself knows that and is being disingenuous when asking for one. On the other hand if you are being sincere in your request for such a definition, your acknowledgement that we all have different ideas of what poverty is makes that request illogical. As you have said to others, you really can’t have it both ways – positivism or relativism please, but not both ;)
Re my whining and political points scoring comments– I should have made myself clearer about that, so apologies for that omission. Whining was about people who simply complain – on this thread and others - that certain locations and/or specific sectors of society are having money spent on it/them as opposed to somewhere/someone else. Political points scoring was aimed at the political party reps, including Dr Scott, who has underlined my comment with his later posts. I will endeavour to be more clear in future. :)
Ben – LOL, couldn’t agree more. If I was Frank Field I’d be pretty happy if Tony Blair described me as not being politically astute!
...
We do indeed all have very different ideas of what we personally consider poverty to be and so this "universally accepted definition" would therefore have to be as result of consensus on the issue.
...
We currently have politicians, fake-charities, civil servants, celebrities, academics... and any number of people who make their own (fairly comfortable) living on the back of it...who take it upon themselves to decide for us what "poverty" actually is. If we weren't paying for it that'd be fine. Assumptions cost nothing but action does.
...
Perhaps one day they might get around to asking us...y'know the people who are actually working and paying the taxes to tackle it and living in poverty ourselves as a direct result...what WE think "poverty" is and then it can definitively stated as a "universally accepted definition". After all, we do live in a Democracy, don't we ? ;)
...
Thanks for clearing up the whining thing. I didn't take it personally... and you do have a point...all I'm trying to say to you is that so do the "whiners" even if we don't always all agree.
..
Vive la discussion :) (I made that up but you get the gist)
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
12:23pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Votre français est de première classe !!
Spiffy
says...
12:30pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Ben Beaconsfield wrote:Mercy buckets, Ben. I wasn't sure since it's been a couple of decades since I passed O Level French with a B grade. To my eternal shame it was better than my English result LOL
You may have made it up, Spiffy, but it was spot-on.
Votre français est de première classe !!
David Scott
says...
1:59pm Thu 4 Oct 12
Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.
There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
2:09pm Thu 4 Oct 12
"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God."
At the end of the day it is the children, not the parents, who interest me, because they have no choice in these matters.
David Scott
says...
3:42pm Thu 4 Oct 12
If parents for whom it does not come more or less naturally, can be encouraged into better, more positive and rewarding interactions with their children that is a jolly good thing. Studies say that about two-thirds of families seeking that sort of parenting help, gain from such programmes.
However, programmes where parents are more or less compelled to attend are probably going to be less effective (and could presumably do harm). I'm not sure I would be chuffed to be told that I had to sign up for training at a Sure Start centre to get benefits or attend an 'initiation ceremony'.
These are the sort of important practicalities that I wonder about in what Frank is proposing. And as I've said before, Frank's party showed zero regard for the fundamental needs and hopes of the least well-off back in 2004.
Ben Beaconsfield
says...
4:05pm Thu 4 Oct 12
David Scott and I are both heading in the same direction, but maybe on different tracks. What I say is this: let's run with FF's plan and see how it goes. It's not a big sum in Wirral budgetary terms (and even less so in the greater scheme of things). Who knows, we might all be surprised.
Spiffy
says...
4:27pm Thu 4 Oct 12
...
Hmmm...that got me thinking. Given that point...and the specific targeting of 130 families....do you suppose that this project is really all about putting wirral's "troubled" families back in their box ?
...
Not about "poverty" at all...well not specifically but it is a convenient cover....but a way of ever-so-politely correcting antisocial behaviour without causing a kick-off from those concerned because, y'know, it's *helping* them.
...
Now that really wouldn't surprise me.
Ben Beaconsfield says...
1:58pm Fri 28 Sep 12