Bloody bloody half days for reception kids

[Icylightning]

Why?!! WHY?!!

Don’t the school realise what a nightmare this is for working parents, I’m a single working parent so it’s even worse. TWO weeks of half days. To ease the children into full days apparently. DD has been doing 5 full days at nursery for 18 mths. Longer hours than she will be doing in school.

I’m using most of my annual leave in the holidays but now need to ask for two weeks of leaving at lunch time ffs. I thought they couldn’t do this anymore?!

Her nursery won’t take her back for those two weeks and is nowhere near her school either. Bloody nightmare

We have 5 days of 1h30min, WTaF? So annoyed, and so hard to plan around. Not full time for almost two weeks. All the sympathy for your not sure what twattery this is, or who thinks this much of a staggered start is beneficial, and to whom.

"All of this information is always freely available in school websites"

No it isn't. School calendars will tell you term times, they dont tell you Jack shit (ime) about starting arrangements or settling in days etc etc.

@bellesausage

Well aren't you rude, wrong and prof of my earlier statement of people not being able to see past their own experience.

Yes school calendars are set, unfortunately the reception class don't start at the same time as the rest of the school, as many, many, many of the posts on this single thread have stated.

You have absolutely no idea what school my DD goes to so how on earth do you suppose you can state with such authority that what I've said is "bollocks".

My DD started last September. School opened to year 1 onwards on August 30th.

Reception started staggered from beginning of the 2nd week of September, my DD started on 10th September, half days for first 5 school days, possible half days for next 5 school days dependant on how first 5 went.

Reception teacher for 38 years here. I’ve seen all the different ways of induction over the years and am not going to get into the pros and cons.

However, what I would like to say is that reception daily life is completely different to a whole day at nursery.

gingerbreadsprinkle
It's a very narrow perspective. Education isn't childcare but schools should still have a duty of care towards their pupils and offer some sort of paid after-school care in order to provide consistency for all families' circumstances.

Is it really a narrow perspective, I am paid to teach your child, I have a duty of care during those hours.

However, I am not childcare. No parent pays me to look after their child. (taxes blah blah blah).

If I were childcare, I could just slap on a dvd and not worry about the rest of it.

Why 2 weeks? Wouldn't few days or a week ar most be enough? I understand where they're coming from as going full day is a big change but 2 weeks to adapt just isn't necessary imo

When my children started school they had half days for the first two months. Then for the first three years they got out at 2pm. They only started full days in their fourth year of school.

I'm a primary teacher and strongly believe that we have got it all wrong in the UK-we should follow other countries and not begin formal education until about 7!

Neither of my boys started ft education until they turned 5 and I strongly feel that this was of great benefit (especially the August-born son). I was a single mummy when my youngest started in Year R so I worked mornings-only for that period of time and he spent the afternoons with me. No regrets 😊

Having said that, I do fully appreciate this may not be workable for everyone. If I ever have a child with my fiancé I probably couldn't afford to only work pt with three kids and wouldnt be able to rely on extended family so chances are child would have to start on a more ft basis than would be our ideal. But given the choice, I'd go pt every time!

Every school aged child is enrolled at school for the hours 9-3. Once a child is of compulsory school age they should attend these hours for every school day. For the school to say no we think it's best to have a staggered start undermines all that they say with regards to the importance for school attendance. Why are schools turning around and saying that 30 hours at the beginning of the year unimportant? They need to be consistent with their attendance message.

Come to Scotland. We scrapped 1/2 days.

My son was in for an hour on his first day (years ago) and then 1/2 days for two weeks.

That's now all been scrapped and kids go in full day from day one.

I’ve taught reception for years.
For a few years we did a staggered start but to be honest I found it made bugger all difference.
We were very aware that the majority of our parents worked, but work in jobs with poor holiday options or less than flexible.

We decided to go full time from day one with the parents having the option to start their child part time if they wanted. It was what worked best for the parents and the children.

Your child is entitled to full time education. You have every right to request that from the school.

@Lwmommy

Whatever. You can’t seem to accept that school and private nursery aren’t the same thing.

And I still don’t believe your story. You’re over egging it to make your point or you purposely chose an exceptionally poor school for your child.

These are basic questions that you ask when you look round a school- what wrap around care is available? What start do you do for reception?

You had the child. You must have known having a child would require more time management and activity juggling than not having a child.

Schools don’t exist for parental convenience.

I’m agnostic as to whether a staggered start is better. I just really object to your entitled attitude towards school.

I suspect that those schools who have opted for the "full time straightaway" option, have possibly done it to get the whole bunfight of settling them in, over more quickly. That may suit working parents better, but I reckon it's very difficult for quite a few of the kids.

The OP said she had emailed the Head, requesting a full-time start from the beginning of term.
How is that going to help? It's the summer holidays. The school is officially closed, and therefore the Head would not be obliged to respond to a "formal request" (if s/he even sees it) and certainly not in any useful time-frame in order to help the OP plan her working hours over the holidays.

My dd really benefited from staggered starts as she got so tired. The school are only doing this as they think it's better for the kids.

For the school to say no we think it's best to have a staggered start undermines all that they say with regards to the importance for school attendance.

As I posted above, attendance is important for when the child is on roll. If a child is on roll for part-time hours for two weeks, they should be attending for the hours they are on roll. This doesn’t undermine the DfE’s attendance requirements because the child is not required to attend full-time.

Please explain how it is more suitable for the children

It's children, plural, not your individual child.

If the majority of mums are are at home then for the majority this might be the first time they have been away from mum for more than a couple of hours.

Even the ones who have been in full time nursery will be having a new experience, lots of new children all at the same time which I doubt happened at nursery.

The rules are different, having to ask to go to the toilet, getting changed for PE, having to sit and do what you are told to not play with the toy you want to play with.

Queing up for lunch will be new, wearing uniform will be new, everyone arriving and leaving at the same time will be new.

For a school with a nursery attached it ,makes sense to have full days from the start if the majority are transferring from the nursery.

I'm in Scotland and I hate the full days from day one crap. Far too much for 4/5 year old that have just had a 7 week holiday.
Far too many parents desperate to chuck their kids into full time education, or as they think, free childcare.

I think my dd started reception after they turned 5 hence yd having no reception as she was a Summer Birthday. I was concerned as she had not had any reception but she has done very well

Ds went to school before 5 as the policy had changed with the staggered start going on for a long time. It seemed unnecessary but it worked out

All of this information is always freely available in school websites

sure it is!

Heard anything from the head, OP?

How nice for posters that don't need to worry about childcare! Unfortunately, life isn't like that for everyone.

This post comes round every summer.

My opinion is that the onus should be on employers to take into account that they employ parents of 4 year olds and so this inconvenience will happen for a week/fortnight/month up to perhaps 4 times (but more often twice) in that employee's career.

I do get a little by the attitude of a few parents that school, which many of us don't pay for, is the same as paid childcare.

With the mental health crisis in teenagers I think it's more important than ever that all children make a positive and comfortable start to school that sets them up for effective learning and socialising for life.

I do get a little confused by the attitude of a few parents that school, which many of us don't pay for, is the same as paid childcare.

Except if you need to work (so can't home ed), you need to send your child to school. And unlike this pp suggested it's not just a one off week. It's all the school holidays, wrap around care - it's so hard to sort and so expensive and depending on where you live, not always even available without massive waiting lists.

I always bet that the same people bleating 'school isn't childcare' also are also absolutely against benefits being given to single mums of school age children...

But the children have already needed childcare from birth/end of parental leave until starting school? So what I'm asking is why it seems to be a shock or considered U by a few parents that they will also need childcare after their child starts school.