No surprise there then. Children (and adults) thrive in spite of the state - not because of it.

Can we have our money back?

Benjamin , Gloucester,

You could have paid me 3 GBP, not 3 billion
Some
children will learn very quickly, my first child absorbed knowledge very easily,My next child a little slower and no 3 it took longer, they now have little difference in their abiltty and they have equal oppurtunity,
I would recommend being around your children forgetting 2 incomes and let them develop as they are able,

hilary, bristol,

The £3Bn was used for far more than just education. I am disappointed that this article does not mention the health and social welfare benefits of the Sure Start scheme, of which I was a beneficiary (no I am not a single unemployed mother! Far from it - I am a well paid IT professional contributing thousands in taxes each year).

Perhaps these health and social benefits are not so easy to measure as educational standards; or perhaps the full picture spoil what is otherwise a good story of government mis-management.

Angela, Gwent, Wales

Everything that this Government has touched has failed, just look at the current state our youth crime is in. Anybody with any sense could have told them that silly schemes for three year olds are pointless. You only have to look at who has been put in charge of them to know that they would be unproductive. 16 to 18 year olds on job creation schemes won't be the best providers of childcare or education. As I said, anyone could have told the Government that. All of this....... assess, assess, assess, assess.... is just a way of creating jobs for overpaid, usually misinformed and, sometimes downright unintelligent, quangos. Pre-schools and schools are crawling with experts on everything, most of whom, don't seem to know anything about children.....maybe that's the problem.

Judy , Liverpool, england

I've got a theory the researchers might like to consider:

Although all that money was supposedly aimed at disadvantaged families, a high proportion of it is actually going to those lower middle class families who have always taken advantage of formal childcare. Tax credits are too complicated, even for some parents educated to HE level 7 (as are both my wife and myself); the NNI was too poorly funded in the medium to long-term to sustain financial assistence to those who cannot afford childcare; children's centres offer too limited a service (how much can you achieve in an hour a week with a child, or parent ?); finally, the Ofsten EY inspection regime is seriously flawed: astonishingly, no-one is charged with independently assuring (indeed, apparently no-one is allowed to question) the quality of their inspector's judgements !

My theory: the research shows no change because the money has been spent largely on children who would have benefited from early education anyway.

A, Midlands,

Now they should look at whether the £10+ billion spent EACH YEAR by the Learning and Skills Council since 2001 has had any measurable effect on the UK's skills and productivity. I think we may already know the answer judging by the loss of jobs and international competitiveness.

MarkS, Leeds,

Sure-Start & other initiaitives should be seen as long term projects attempting to provide sustainable improvements rather than quick fixes. Those involved should not be deterred by another report which in my view has spent a great deal of time measuring the wrong things.
The success which children may have in school depends on the relationships they have with others and no more so than with their parents. These programmes are initiating cultural change.They are encouraging parents to understand, to support and to be committed to their children.
Does the report measure the involvement of parents, and the emotional health and behaviour of their children?
These are the bedrock of any significant improvements in future academic performance and will take a long time to bear fruit.

Alan Train, Horsham, UK

I am amazed at the reporting that has followed the publication of this paper. This paper cannot be used to evaluate government initiatives such as Sure Start, as it included "no measures of the involvement of the children in any of the national initiatives." There are also numerous variables not controlled for within this study, such as inter-rater reliability when administering the test. The study brings to light some important questions but cannot be used as evidence for or against government initiatives.

Hannah Graveling, London,

This 'intervention' has been carried out with the best of intentions and Alison O'Dowd has made some highly relevant comments. However, The admission by Dr Merrell that the survey carried out by the University of Durham 'failed to identify which children, if any, had been subject to Sure Start or any other of the Governments recent pre-school initiatives' smacks of poor research standards. She then says that 'given that 35,000 children in 124 schools were assessed, it was likely that many had taken part in the intiatives'. I can only call this attitude sloppy. Surely part of the object of the exercise should have been to see if there was any difference between those who had and those who hadn't before making any pronouncements. My advice to the government is - Find yourself a good market research company to do the next survey for you.

Caroline Swift, Rochester, Kent

This comes as no surprise to me. The concentration of the govt on getting mums to abandon their babies in nurseries to go back to work and increase the coffers of the Inland Revenue was never about the benefits for the children. If this govt wanted to support families it should have invested in the already established Home-Start initiatives, rather than inventing it's own so it could take all the credit. It should also have paid mums to stay at home and take care of their own children for at least the first year, which would be a far better outcome for the children - and possibly even some mums might enjoy spending some time with their children if the pressure of finances were taken out of the equation!

Also the amount of money wasted on trivia (babygrows, cups etc with Sure Start logo on) has been disgraceful, it's a good job most tax payers don't realise the extent of the waste!

Sylvia Wyatt, Lancashire,

This incompetent government could have studied the results from this area of Wales, where the children start school at three and have done so, I have been told since the 1920's. That should have provided enough data without spending a penny or a pence.

D.Kerr, Rhondda, S. Wales UK

You surprise me...

Apathetic, Woodstock,

So it shows that the real purpose of this 3 Billion pounds (sterling) spend was not to improve the reading and writing and numeracy of these very young and massively impressionable pre-schoolers. I wonder what was taught then?

I'll bet they all have a much better grasp of politically correct concepts than previous generations. the labour party have no wish to genuinely educate our children. They do wish to indoctrinate though and I claim that this 3 Billion pounds was used to indoctrinate very very young and impressionable minds with the very basic concepts of PC thought.

Ken, Barrow in Furness, UK

When will this country wake up to the fact that Labour has taxed us to death and wasted Billions on failed projects.

Hurry up Tories and start to to act like an electable government so we can get rid of Labour.

Adrian, Aldershot, Engalnd

Well, it's only 3 billion quid. I suppose we should be grateful taxpayers got with such a small bill for yet another socialist inspired eductaion experiment.

One day the electorate may even start to wonder what happened to all of their salary monies over the last decade.

"Now children, who can tell me how many noughts there are in 3 billion?"

"No Gordon. It doesn't depend on who's money it is."

Edwin Thornber, Bucharest,

Typical. Another phenomenal waste of money for the cause of PC.

Tom Whittwell, London, England

What could have been achieved if 3bn. had been directed into teaching,the professional body properly trained to do the job,not hastily gathered nvq candidates training ad hoc on the job under the guidence of health visiters. For the most part doing the work that parents should do. What I have seen of it,it ,is not much more than a baby sitting exersize of convenience;Well rescourced but hapless in its application and running.

brian bourne, Ibstock, Leicestershire

Four and Five year old children being tested on a computer for 15 minutes decides that the pre school programme cannot be judged a success.
Why are we wasting taxpayers money on Durham University to do a study that they even admit is to early to judge overal peformance of Sure Start.
The report told us nothing.

Bill Rees, Truro, Cornwall

It can't really have a marked effect, or at least, not £3bn worth. Very young children already spent every waking minute learning and developing - they're sponges at that age, soaking absolutely everything up, and it's difficult to improve on the learning acheivements of someone who's already giving 100%...

Greg, Northampton, UK

I do not feel that this research is an accurate measure of whether the Sure Start program has had any effect. The children may have been helped in ways that have not been measured, such as behaviour within the classroom setting and ability to listen and ability to cooperate with classmates. I feel that Sure Start and the nursery places were as much about social progress as they were about teaching literacy. It is a shame to use such damning headlines about a program that I feel has helped children in deprived areas access services. I do not work for Sure Start but am aware of what they do in my area.

Alison O'Dowd, Porlock, Somerset