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

What you learn when your kids start school is that it's nothing like nursery, which is basically set up for the convenience of working parents. This is just the start of the journey. There's no handover at the end of the day, where the teacher tells you how much your kid ate and what activities they did and how often they did a poo (don't worry though, you'll still know that as they're not great at cleaning up after themselves at that age, so the evidence is in their underwear). This is about the kid, not you, so you have to suck it up and accommodate the hours, daily homework, wraparound care and every dress up day, raffle, remember to bring a cardboard box day. It's a lot. Half days for weeks are just the baptism of fire. It's fairly easy to work when your kids are in nursery. I went part time when my kids started school in response to all the other stuff school requires.

My DDs did full days from the start but alternate days. With DD1 it was five weeks, but 3 with DD2. That was 10 years ago though so I thought things might have moved on a bit.
DS is starting next September and I'm already wondering how the hell we're going to cover half days/alternate days or whatever.
But yes you can ask them to go full time from day 1 but even if they're used to nursery school is a big adjustment.

Our school did it too. Son hated it as he'd been going to nursery 9-3 every day 🤦🏻‍♀️. They should do it for a week and then allow parents to carry on if they feel their child needed it, but get everyone else back in school!

If it was truly about the child then it would be more flexible as some children are absolutely ready for full time from the start.

School shouldn't be so difficult for working parents that the mother (because it is almost always the mother) feels like she can't even work full time.

I’ve taught reception where we have done half days for 3 weeks one year, then we did half days for a week, then straight in the deep end the following year. In my experience it made no difference at all. That first week is a horror. Crying, wetting, can’t do up their trousers, forgotten their name, can’t find their coat etc. The length of the day doesn’t make much difference to be fair.

It's ridiculous isn't it? The amount of things that you need to do, pay for, bring in and then don't get me started on all the school assembly and parent activities right in the middle of the day. I am so lucky I mainly work from home and have a very flexible employer. I still feel I'm losing the plot most days.

If it was truly about the child then it would be more flexible as some children are absolutely ready for full time from the start.

I think this is the misconception. Yes, some children are totally ready, they are not the ones to be worried about, are they? My dc was one of the older ones with no problem adjusting, ready to get on. But I knew there were others, maybe younger or less confident children who may benefit time with less teacher/children ratio. So I absolutely think it's truly about children.

It's about some children. Other children would find staggered starts more difficult and take longer to settle.

It should be an option but not forced on everyone.

My son is finishing Yr 1. We however had the 3 week transition period. Utter nightmare.

logistically his preschool helped as I got in with the manager so well. I couldn’t get time off for three weeks due to annual leave allowance so he was doing half days at nursery for three weeks and half days at school. We collected him and changed him into his uniform at the nursery car park and off we went. Poor kid just rolled with it as he’s pretty chilled.

Three weeks was ridiculously long. He was at nursery 5 days per week full time. He had zero issues with tiredness etc.

However as the term catches up, excitement wears slightly, they get way more tired at school as they have to ‘think’ more. Mental exhaustion. Don’t be tempted to book them into clubs. They need the downtime when they finish.

get on the after school club list yesterday too. Like gold dust.

It should be an option but not forced on everyone

Yes, it should be, but most of the cases if it was up to parents to decide, it won't be the best interest for children, more likely to be convenience for parents, I think.

With my eldest she didn’t go full time till after October half term. Only children born Sept - Dec went ft after 4 weeks - it was a nightmare as in order to get an ASC place I had to pay and reserve from the start & didn’t use it till November! We kept her place at nursery and did a mad dash at lunchtime to drop her in - husband & I shared it with a mix of WFH & going into work later.

Second child went to a different school and was FT by second week. You could if you wanted stay PT till December.
Nobody took that offer of PT all children FT after two weeks.

When my friend's son sobbed at the sight of me, his mum's friend and his friend's mum, picking him up, and spent the next 2 hours miserable because his schedule was so messed up, and that was the second week of four, was that in his best interest? I don't think it was tbh.

I requested full days straight away in a state school for DD5 and she got it.

my school offers three half days who wants for their child in the first week. Normally 2-3 families choose this option.

Some parents can't just get time off from work. It's in the best interest of children to have a roof over their heads and food in their tummies.

Lets also not pretend that some of those who are all for staggered starts aren't also thinking about themselves such as their anxiety about their child starting school.

If schools insist on staggered starts then parents should be informed during open days and it absolutely shouldn't be as long as 3 weeks.

Go ahead and be that parent if you work and they have a school place. They are legally entitled to a full time school place from Day 1. Old, but I have this my documents from posts on here previously that I sent to some friends:

"It is illegal for a school to insist on a staggered start. Any parent who requests a full time place from the 1st day of term must be given one. The office of the schools adjudicator has ruled on it many times and has included it in the annual summary

If you want full time from day 1 and you are in England then tell the head that is what you want. If they refuse then direct them towards the office of the schools adjudicator ruling that I linked to earlier.

If they still refuse. Contact the LA admissions if they are the admissions authority. If they are not the admissions authority and it is an academy then contact the EFA.

If needed follow up with a formal complaint to school with threat of school adjudicator (but it won't get that far)
The school don't have the option not to be accommodating. The law says that if a parent requests a full-time start, they should get it. The school wouldn't be doing the OP a favour, they'd be doing what they are mandated to do by law.
...............

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160808140848/www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/484942/Office-of-the-Schools-Adjudicator-annual-report-September-2014-to-August-2015.pdf

2015 support paragraph 62

The Code at paragraph 2.16 requires schools to make provision to admit children full-time from 1 September after their fourth birthday. Those children born between 1 September and 31 December reach compulsory school age of 5 years old at the beginning of the term after 1 January and for those born between 1 January and 31 March this is the beginning of the term after 1 April. Until a child reaches compulsory school age parents may choose to delay the admission of their child and/or their child can attend part-time. Paragraph 2.16 makes clear that it is for the parents to decide whether their child attends school prior to reaching compulsory school age and if so, whether attendance is full or part-time. Schools must make full-time provision available from the beginning of the autumn term of the school year in which the child reaches compulsory school age, the September following the child’s fourth birthday. The OSA has again had queries from parents about their child’s right to a full-time place. Some schools provide an induction period such that it appears schools dictate the sessions for which children can and cannot attend school, including setting requirements that contravene a parent’s right to full or part-time or deferred schooling contrary to the requirements of the Code.

When my youngest started in year R we skipped the half day intros (in communication with the school). So he only started once the kids were doing full days, I think it was 2 weeks into term for us.

Remember compulsory school doesn't start until the term after a child turns 5, so in most cases year R isn't compulsory, and technically you can chose if/when you send your child. Obviously I don't advocate taking that too literally, but you do have a right to take your child's individual circumstances into account and the school can't completely override it in the same way they can once a child reaches compulsory school age.

Some parents can't just get time off from work. It's in the best interest of children to have a roof over their heads and food in their tummies.

Of course it is quite right, for parents to ask the school, and I know few parents who did. It's personal, I think. I don't think you need the approval of MN to decide what's right for your family. Of course parents having a job and be able to provide for family is a legitimate reason to ask school to do what is already determined a rights of the child, like starting full time from day 1. And from reading multiple thread over the years, the school can't refuse legally, can't they?

You’re right three weeks is ridiculous. At my kids school it’s 3 days of half days then full time for younger ones. Older ones start full time straight away. If kids are struggling with full days parents can request them to go part time. Most kids are fine doing full time and it’s less disruptive if they just get into the routine.

Doesn't look like they can refuse. They generally seem to keep quiet about that though which I don't think is right.

How does that actually work though? A child who goes full time from day one is going to be doing a lot of repetitive work as they will be there each time the teacher has to do the work with a different group. Bit boring for them I'd have thought.

Several schools mentioned on here seem to manage to make it work.

I also can't imagine that it would be boring, certainly not as boring as sitting at home on the ipad because parents still need to work.

I imagine they would just allow the all day children to play/have free choice if they've done an activity already.

Could be worse. When DD started we had a home visit from two teachers, 3 PEEP sessions (can’t remember what that stood for!), an evening session for parents only, then a week of half days. Luckily I had given up work a few months earlier because we literally couldn’t have done it otherwise. I think they’ve stopped everything but the half days now.

When I did it we used to have everyone in for the morning, which was when we did maths and phonics. The part time children would go home at lunch. Then we would do topic based learning in the afternoons. It was a shame that some would miss out but the way the EYFS curriculum works there wasn’t anything it mattered too much if they missed. What did happen though was that word got round that we did fun stuff in the afternoon and the part time children started asking to come full time.
No one who started part time was ever still part time by half term.

That is from 5 years of age and no child is of that age starting reception. Therefore you are not obliged to send your child to school till that age and they aren’t ‘entitled’ to full time education till then either.
you may feel your child is ready but being a reception TA I can tell you not all are. We still have some that are still struggling and we are nearing the school year. Your child may have also settled well and be used to full time nursery but she was used to that setting and her care givers. She was much younger when she started so would have eased into much quicker. There will be some who as mothers will struggle and also need time to adjust. For some the transition is a breeze for others it’s much harder so obviously as you can appreciate the school can not provide an individual timetable for each parent group. My school is a 4 year intake. That would be 120 families.

Also, from many years of experience its usually the “full time nursery” children that struggle to adapt more.

How does that actually work though? A child who goes full time from day one is going to be doing a lot of repetitive work as they will be there each time the teacher has to do the work with a different group. Bit boring for them I'd have thought.

That's the reason my DD's new school is giving for not letting parents send their children full time - that they will be repeating the same stuff morning and afternoon so it will be boring.

They sent home quite a bit of info about the school/starting school in general, and it included an FAQ sheet, which included a question about whether the phased start was compulsory. Which was an odd question for them to include because the actual answer was conspicuous by its absence. It just talked about how they thought it was beneficial, and how the children would be bored anyway if sent full time.