3 weeks of half days for reception children.

[Tohaveandtohold]

So my child is starting reception in sept and we got an email on Friday of their plans for
their transition and the new term. My main issue is they expect them to do 3 weeks of half day so half of the class will do 9-12 the first 2 weeks and then at week 3 they’ll be there for lunch so 9-12:45. The other half of the class will do half day in the afternoon.
I just feel this is out of touch. My child currently goes to nursery 4 days a week doing 8-6 though she’s picked up around 5 anyway and has never been clingy, so I can’t see how 3 weeks of half day will benefit her. Also we both work, luckily I’ll only go to the office 2 days a week so dh will pick up those days and we’re not using up all our annual leave unnecessarily. Can I request she only does half day for a week and that they have to provide her with full time education.
Like I don’t want to be ‘that’ parent at the beginning of her school journey but I feel 3 weeks is just ridiculous and out of touch

DH was in surgery every morning and afternoon and I didn’t work local to the school.

Our school did this, it cost me £1000+ for additional childcare as I had to work. There was no benefit to any child as far as I could see, absolute madness

Because the whole point is to establish expectations and routines from the start.

School have more information than you do about the cohort of children coming into reception before you even add in children affected by Covid lockdown. That means they are privy to any behavioural or additional needs f children starting reception and they are planning how to help those children transition into school.

So although your child may be fine, they have to fit in with the school's decision on how they are starting reception. My children's school did this but kept their nursery schedule, so my child did 5 mornings, kept 5 mornings for week one, my friend's child did 2 1/2 days at the start of the week so they kept that, same for afternoon nursery attendees and latter half of the week. Week 2 they added in a lunch for the morning and afternoon children then week 3 full school day. Those that hadn't attended the attached nursery were slotted in to the available spaces.

Every year there was kick off by parents about how they would manage this especially if they came from another nursery setting etc. Answer is sadly that that is what parental leave/annual leave/friends/family is for. It is shit but it is just the way some schools work. Every year it is bitched about on here too.

Why not send them full time from day one?

Lots of people are single parents on minimum wage. Or two parents on minimum wage. Or hell, two parents who earn just fine but can't randomly take time off without notice. Lots of bosses would laugh in your face if you asked for 3 weeks off.

And then you get to the rest of the year, no holidays for reception age children, OK?

And all this for a policy which has apparently little widespread evidence for being good for children beyond the purely anecdotal?

There are so many jobs where that just wouldn’t work (own business for example). I agree should perhaps be offered to kids who may struggle and need to be eased in very gently, but I know mine went straight to full days without a problem. Optional half days would work all round.

It’s not the schools decision - legislation is there stating that full time education must be provided from day one. Schools have to, and do, facilitate this.

Annual leave is needed for school hols cover though especially if you have a young in year child who can’t access the usual age 5-11 holiday camp. If you use most of leave in September you are stuffed for rest of year.
Plus not all jobs can take leave.
Mine was used to 8-6 nursery and was fine ft from day 1. They had a reading corner they could go in for a chill out.
The scenarios I mentioned above were done by her friends parents. One had a whole term of messing around! These were children who had been in nursery with dd.

I think it’s good it’s mentioned as not all parents know ft from day 1 can be insisted upon.

I've always been appalled that English primary schools have children from age 4 doing full days. It's not like this in some other parts of the UK. This is also one of the (many) reasons why I decided not to send my children to primary school as we live in England. I grew up in a different UK country and the first few years of primary school always did shorter days for the full year. The primary I went to also did shorter days altogether than our local English primary's do. They only finish at 3.30pm here, which I feel is just too long.

I also think it's important to realise that just because your child does 8-6pm in a nursery, does not mean all other children are so used to being away from their parents/caregivers for most of the waking day.

I actually think the primary school you've chosen are doing a good thing which are in the best interests of the children. Although, I personally think it would be better to have the full class in the same session instead of splitting it as friendships are often made at the start.

As a parent, you should also think of what is best for the children, instead of the inconvenience it causes you due to your decision to both work full-time.

I think the only thing "out of touch" here is you and your lack of care of what is in your child's best interests.

It's normal I agree but so hard for parents. When DD started, it was 3 weeks of 1-3 hours. At the time we couldn't work from home and have no help, so used 15 days of annual leave.

@Parker231 home visits are optional for all parents but take up is high. We’re happy to visit later if requested or parents can book a 1-1 meeting in school, teams call or phone call if they can’t make a home visit work/would prefer not to have us at home.

@ReadingSoManyThreads can you show me the evidence that demonstrates that this approach is better in terms of outcomes and wellbeing than starting full time from day 1? Peer reviewed studies only, please.

Having said that, I do think children in the UK start school too young - lifting the age for all to 6 would be so much better. And then they could all strart full time with so much more maturity in the bag. That would require a massive investment in high quality childcare provision, probably following the Nordic model.

But the half day approach is half-assed.

This is actually pretty common in rural areas

@Parker231 that came in after mine were in reception if it was 2013. However, I wouldn't want to be that parent from day one. I thought the full time thing was to stop schools putting certain children on part time timetable due to not being able to manage their behaviour in school so it stopped that. Then of course you get parents arguing it the other way that their child can't cope and should only be doing mornings only.

Because they are doing a staggered start this same as OPs reception. So in the first week of term she doesn’t go at all and we have a home visit on the Tuesday. On the second week she’s doing a 1/2 day on the Tuesday and a full day (no wrap around) on the Friday.
The third week she can start properly. It’s going to cost me £1000s. Plus potential the 200 children I should be teaching a core subject to in high school will have to have a cover teacher for the first 1/2 term!
Not much I can do though sadly.

My DD started school last year. Several parents, including me, thought that the three-week staggered start was unnecessary, as our kids were used to long nursery days.

However, we were probably wrong. I don’t know about the other children, but after a morning in Reception, DD was always exhausted, grumpy and whiny. There was so much for them to learn.

Full time is a legal option - the school should be making parents aware of this.

Those scenarios were the type of things dd’s friends parents did. I was fine she was ft day 1.
What’s the alternative for working parents.
Not everyone can take a block of unpaid parental leave. If you use annual leave you won’t be able to cover the school Hols.
These were children who were happily in nursery 8-6.
Now you can require ft from day 1. That wasn’t the case when dd started so people did what they could.

"They should have"??

Er, no! Just because there are some free nursery hours available, doesn't mean a child must go. There are many reasons why some parents do not use these free nursery hours. If ALL parents used them, there wouldn't even be enough nursery places available.

I really hate this mentally that some people have were they think nursery is a vital thing. It absolutely isn't.

There are posts like this every year! Your child is entitled to attend full time from day 1. You should contact the school, quoting the 2013 ruling which is included here, and request that your child attends full time.

i did this when mine started in reception. Headteacher told me the sky would fall in, reception teacher told me that it’s not about what’s most convenient for me, it’s for the benefit of the child… I stood my ground, knowing dc would be fine.

what happened was that dc was fine, other parents realised that dc was full time and by the end of the first full week, all but a couple of kids were in full time. The next year, the school changed the arrangements (with the message to parents that ‘to help the children to settle’, they would minimise the transition period to one half day, one half day plus lunch, then full time!

We considered what was best for our DT’s - that involved full time from the start of term. No issues or dramas. Happy children = happy parents.

I’m not sure how this works for me as it’s a school nursery, not reception. My day is only 3. I think it’s a cheek that the claim my 30
hours for this otherwise surely I’d have been able to use them at my current nursery (although this would be even more confusing for the child that starting full time straight away).

*daughter