Parents rights on staggered reception start dates??

[kate2mum]

Hi,

My DD starts school in September. She is early Oct child so the oldest in her age group to start at reception at her village cofe school.

Went to a meeting with reception teacher and DD and was given lots of paperwork, amongst it being her "personal" start date which is 14 September, the Friday of the second week of school. Seemed a bit sly the way they did this, wasn't mentioned verbally at any time, just noted once in the 20 odd pages of bumff. I queried this and was told the youngest children go first, 3 or 4 children a day until the last staggered intake, my daughters. She starts with two other children she does not know, who did not go to her nursery.

I can understand the benefit of this system for the younger children and the teachers. I can see no benefit whatsoever to my DD and the more I think about it, the more I see only disadvantages to her. They are: she knows she is the oldest, most of the other children will have settled in and been at school for almost two weeks before she starts so she will be like a new girl, despite knowing almost all of them (and knowing they are all younger than her). By starting on the second Friday (which will be a blur) she won't really start to be there properly until the Monday of the third week, still feeling very new, while everyone else is settled. After a month of school for most of the others she will have had two weeks, etc. I can see this starting her off on the wrong foot for the whole term. For my DD a "staggered start" is about keeping her out of the way for two weeks while they deal with the other children.

If I can go anything to change this I will. But obviously going about it in a calm reasonable way!

Read some of the other threads about staggered starts including:

"The posters who say that schools are legally required to offer full time places from day one to all children are correct however there s a grey area around 'setting it' sessions.
For example the school mentioned up thread that insisted on part time until the term the child was 5 are not allowed to do that as of 2011 they must allow all children to be full time from September if they choose although the parent still has the right to send part time. Schools are allowed though to have for example a 'setting in' period of part time hours for a few weeks, the problem is finding out where the line is drawn between the two. I would say any school that uses the age of the child to restrict hours at school for more then a couple of weeks is breaking the law in regards to the right for a full time school place for the September after the child's 4th birthday.
Most of the cases mentioned in this thread would fall under 'setting in' sessions and therefore be within the law. I don't know if there have been any test cases in regards to this grey area and I hope some of the experts in these areas will know more about this then I do and can clarify where the line is drawn."

Also just wondering if she turned up on the first day of school ready for work, would they be legally entitled to turn her away? It is one thing to have a tacit agreement between the school and parents that she won't turn up during the school term, but IF she did turn up, could they refuse to teach her??

[AdventuresWithVoles]

I think you've already marked yourself out as "difficult parent".

[kate2mum]

Yip, my card is marked. But they do rely on parents doing what they are told and I am thinking of my daughter here.

This is a village school in the countryside where all the children speak English as first and only language. Can't see why they are making out starting reception is so difficult.

[nailak]

what? hpw is exploring your options and what is best for your own child difficult?

All she did was ask why the start date she had and that makes her difficult for daring to ask a question?

[kate2mum]

Ohh, and get this. When the Head was giving the speech about not tolerating unauthorised absences for holidays, she added that she would be checking with employers that the parent could only have the specific weeks the parent claimed BUT if you were a local farmer the school TOTALLY understood their need to sometimes holidays in term time!!

Isn't that one rule for landowners and another for workers... I think I was sitting there with my mouth open wondering what century I was in..

[AdventuresWithVoles]

So what does OP want? Her child to start sooner, on the first day? Does she want them to change whole system of how intake happens, or just what happens to her child? So which child will get shifted around to a different date to accommodate OP's child -- and why? Maybe that won't suit needs of the other child. Whose parent isn't going to be pleased to have things changed now, either. Or suit the system the school has which they find tried & tested or they can see big positives in trying out.

Or maybe they have assessed OP's child as being one of the best to start later, someone confident enough to integrate in well later. Perhaps unlike the others.

OP is talking about rights & legal precedent, she obviously wants to push very hard on this.

Is this your eldest child, OP?

[KitKatGirl1]

May be he meant farm workers? Surely there are more of them than owners?!

It is a complete pita to have four weeks of half days which is what most of the schools round here do but none of them as far as I know do staggered starts for different children; they all start on day one!

I didn't mind it that much first time round but when my ds repeated reception year (statemented for autism; August birthday etc etc) I did object to having to do it second time round too!!

[AThingInYourLife]

I think it's pretty shit to stagger starting school like this so that 3 4 year old's have to come brand new into a class of settled children.

[kate2mum]

We are, obviously, London incomers.

[Vickles]

This is how most primary school do things. It seems the issue here is that your particular school is tiny, and that is why this "system" is affecting your child. It's not the system, it sounds like the school. Find another school!

[MoaningMajestyReignsAgain]

I don't think she has marked herself as difficult at all, it is a very reasonable thing to query.

TBH I am not worried about being seen as difficult myself, I want to work cooperatively with the school but at the end of the day they are there to teach my child, not to be my best buddy

My understanding is that they are obliged to offer a full time place from September, but the school decides what a full time place means for the child, so if they offer mornings only to start, that is the full time place for a reception starter, IYKWIM.

I wouldn't bring her when they are not expecting her, I think that would be getting off to an awkward start. But I would perhaps state that you ' strongly prefer that she starts at beginning of term and you would like them to agree to that' - I think they would find it difficult to refuse (given that you are just offering to send her to school!)

[AdventuresWithVoles]

Give us a county, OP, Cornwall?
I am sure that I have read an explanation, somewhere of the 1-2 child introduced per day system, why it can work well. Not something our school does, though.

[clam]

I think that this is the first of many, many occasions when you will feel that the school operates in a way that disadvantages your daughter personally. It's unrealistic to expect your rights and expectations to trump everyone else's. Presumably the school has decided that this method of a staggered start is beneficial to the whole cohort. I would pick your battles, to be honest.

Or look at home-edding.

[AdventuresWithVoles]

How big is the intake, OP?

[kate2mum]

Adventures, she was not assessed or seen by the school before the paperwork was done. It was all arranged without reference to the children, just going by dob I suppose.

I have a law degree so I am always interested in the legal aspect of everything.

Yes I am not ashamed to say I want my daughter to start on the first day, I do not want her to walk into a class of 27 settled children and be the last to go in. I am only responsible for my child; I hope and imagine the other parents are also thinking about what is best for their child and will query the school if they feel unease.

[Imisssleepingin]

It's only 2 weeks, I hardly think this will make a big difference.
I wouldn't rock the boat so early on in my childs school life.

[MerylStrop]

It is bolleaux about having your card marked as a difficult parent btw.

At our school reception start full time from the second day of term (get everyone else sorted first). Parents can choose to send their child part time for the first two weeks, or up to half term if they and the teachers decide together so to do. They proposed a staggered/part time start a couple of years ago when DS started but immediately offered flexibility when a few parents explained they didn't feel it necessary for their children.

I suggest you go in and see them and say you would like your DD to start at day one for the reasons that you explain and HAVE a CONVERSATION with them.

No point getting shirty about the farmworkers holiday thing - it would be a difficult position to maintain for the Head. Also they all HAVE to say please don't take holiday in term time, but they were indicating flexibility there.

[MerylStrop]

going in all guns blazing with"a london incomers" chip on your shoulder WILL NOT HELP

[DaisySteiner]

I simply don't understand why schools insist on doing this. It's incredibly inconvenient for parents and I fail to see any benefit to the children at all. WHY is a staggered start beneficial?! I can see why it might be easier for the teachers but not for the children! Our local school lets children go part time until term after their 5th birthday, with it being totally up to the parents how much or little they go. It works incredibly well, children seem to settle in very quickly and parents can do what works best for their family. Can't understand why every school doesn't do it instead of coming up with complicated arrangements such as these.

[wfrances]

our schools stagger little ones too,
i thought it was the norm,i had no issues with the start date but i wasnt happy about 1/2 days as i had other children in that school and in the junior school and it would be logisticaly impossible .
school were very understanding and said he could start full days straight away.
so just ask can you send her in on day one.

[AThingInYourLife]

I think 2 weeks is long enough for the last children to start to be disadvantaged socially, particularly if there are only 3 of them.

If it was done based on the children's personalities it might be OK. But using dob to decide who gets to come in last could cause problems for shy children born in the autumn.

[kate2mum]

Suffolk. Lots of crop farmers around here. There are 30 in reception class.

I will ask for an appointment with the Head. Wouldn't just turn up with DD on first day, without talking to them first, as that would be uncomfortable! But I am interested to know if they could legally refuse her.

Clam, I would ask, during meeting with Head, to explain the specific advantages to my daughter of her personal start day. I can clearly see the advantages to the others, but not to her.

Or should she be reasonably expected to take it on the chin for the benefit of everyone else that her first experience of school is more anxious than it should be?

My older DS, 10, is in a prep school. So this is my first experience of state primary, and I grew up in NZ.

[LackaDAISYcal]

Our school does staggered starts, based firstly on whether they attended nursery there, and then on age. Children new to the school first, in batches according to age, then the old guard, again according to age. With nursery ones it is done on age. They have a combined foundation unit with 4 groups of 25 children. 100 children all on their first day would be hell on earth I would imagine!
My DD didn't start till the third week last September. It hasn't disadvantaged her or any of the others in any way as far as I can see nor did there seem any settling in problems. In fact it seems to have been nothing but advantageous as I never noticed any tears or overly upset children.

I can imagine it might be a PITA for parents who work daytime hours though. I do evenings and weekends so it didn't inconvenience me at all.

If you work, OP, and I assume by your "one rule for workers, another for landowners" comment that you do, is this really about what's best for your DD?

[teacherwith2kids]

Looking at it from another perspective, schools have a difficult path to tread.

On the one hand - see recent MN threads - there are a group of parents who want their child in school full time from day 1.

On the other hand - see other MN threads - there are a group of parents who don't feel that their child is ready for school at all and want to defer their school entry until January, Easter or even the following year.

There is another group of parents who want the flexibility not to bring their child in if they are tired, but to do that on days of their choosing.

There is also the group of parents who want a gentle introduction to school consisting of part days.

And finally there is the group of parents who do not care about school at all and only enrol their children in formal education because previous experience has taught them that otherwise there are legal consequences (I am NOT talking about elective HE here - we have a substantial minority group of pupils from an ethnic community which has no tradition whatever of school attendance and virtually 100% adult illiteracy as a result).

Each school creates its own path through this within the law, and in every school there will be some parents who dislike the path that the school chooses. There is no one way that will please everyone. We admit full time from day 1 - mainly to communicate to the final group of parents that school is serious and that attendance is expected. This makes 3 other groups of parents cross. Other schools will make different choices, and it will make some of their parents cross too. There is no perfect solution....and by October half term, the initial 2 weeks of staggered starts may well be a distant memory ....

[cherrypieplum]

Staggered intake is nuts. Fact is you have to take them all at some point so why not get it out the way?? I thought this had gone out with the ark!

[GirlsInWhiteDresses]

I personally don't mind the phased start dates, even if my child was the last one in. It's hard to argue that your child should be first without a very good reason. However I do object to this staggered start taking weeks or months to get through, or the prolonged reduced hours that some schools offer.

9.30-noon is absolutely unmanageable to most working parents. Yes I get that schools are not childcare etc but if you use the afterschool club, you need to employ someone (possibly unknown to your child) to mind your child until 3 o'clock and then drop them to the afterschool club. Ditto if your regular childminder won't do it as some of her children sleep at lunchtime. Some schools do this for an entire term (e.g. Richmond) and surely that's ten times more disruptive for children than all starting full-time (with an opt-out if needed) from week 3.

Utter madness.