Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think 2 and a half weeks 'lead in' to school is mad!

170 replies

fifitot · 14/09/2010 21:40

DD started reception. The children have 4 days consisting of 2 hours, 4 days the following week from 9.30-2 and then it is not until the following week they start full time.

It's madness. Most of the kids in her class have been in the nursery anyway and hardly need nearly 3 weeks to bed in to school!

Talk about inconvenience for parents. I'm all for a gentle introduction for the kids but think this is ridiculous. Every other school near us does a couple of half days and then away they go! How people who work full time manage it I do not know.

It will be half term and they will have hardly done a full day in school!

OP posts:
lemonysweet · 14/09/2010 21:42

there was only a couple of half days when my DDs were young about 10 years ago and there were tears but they managed fine.

i think a lot of kids are really babied when it comes to change. some kids have SN and i can understand that, but kids without SN? kids need to be tough for school sadly!

Eglu · 14/09/2010 21:46

Our school does 2 weeks, which is quite short I think. YOu are quite lucky it is only that long.

A lot of schools do take it until half term to ease children in to full time. I do think this is crazy though.

As for inconvenience to parents, that argument doesn't really stand, since school is not childcare for your benefit.

meltedmarsbars · 14/09/2010 21:47

The school here does 4 weeks. Hmm

Hell for working parents.

Chathappy · 14/09/2010 21:47

My ds has just started and does 3 weeks of half days! Well, 1 week until 12pm then 2 weeks till 1pm, then full time. He did 2 full days at nursery every week anyway.

It is a bit inconvenient...

mazzystartled · 14/09/2010 21:49

Our school was quite sensible

Two days of half days. Then option to to stay on half days or go full time for the following two weeks. And indeed I believe they were flexible if kids still not settling. A much more child-centred approach.

Most went full time asap.

DebiTheScot · 14/09/2010 21:50

Grrr wrote a big post then internet disconnected itself.

My ds has just started too. They are doing 1 week of mornings without lunch, 1 week with lunch and then full time. And tht's getting them in much quicker than usual.
Most schools round here do different things depending on the ages of the kids, the summer birthdys don't go full time till after half term in some schools.

It is awkward if you work but the school is just doing what it thinks is best for the children. It's also something to do with how much funding the school gets.

Hulababy · 14/09/2010 21:50

At DD's school it is full days from day 1, and it is fine. The children are no less unsettled or sad or tears. Infact they seem very settled in very quickly. The school deals with individual children who might find it harder on individua basis, working along side the parent.

Where I work we have a week of settling in, starting with a couple of hours, then half a day, then lunch time time to full day. It is more than ample TBH and I think could be reduced more.

A friend of mine;s DS started school a couple of years ago and they had a term of settling! Half days in the mornings, then half days in an afternoon, etc. Nightmare situation!

purpleturtle · 14/09/2010 21:50

DS2 started last week. They did 9-12, which was no good to DS2. As far as he's concerned, it's not really school unless you stay for lunch, is it?

It has been easier to get him up and out this week, as he's staying till 1pm, so gets to take his packed lunch with him.

I am looking forward to next week, when he stays all day, and I can stop living my life in 3 hour blocks. Grin

pooka · 14/09/2010 21:53

We had 2 days of 9.15am until 11.30am. then, after the weekend, full days.

We have 2 entries though - so no children under 4.5.

seems to work fine - did with dd and now ds1 settling well. They are super flexible though depending on the needs of the child,

At one school nearby, children don't go full time until after half-term!!

TheCrackFox · 14/09/2010 21:54

We have 4 weeks of 9-12 which, IMO is nonsense as 95% went to the nursery attached to the school and the other 5% went to a private nursery.

redskyatnight · 14/09/2010 21:54

We have similar at our school. Worse is that there are several "groups" so children do different hours on different days depending on their groups.

It is bonkers.

DD had a paddy this morning because her best friend was not in (she is doing a different rotation to DD). Once the TA had elicited what the problem was she helpfully told DD that in a couple of weeks everyone will be full time and in all the time and all will be fine.

I've met at least a couple of mums who didn't have a holiday this summer because they had to save their leave to cover the Reception "phase in".

Belle03 · 14/09/2010 22:05

I teach reception & I HATE the staggered intake. In the past, the idea was to get children settled who hadn't been at Nursery or other pre-school setting,but that is so rare now, most children have had some nursery experience & lots have had full day provision. I also feel really sorry for parents (including myself!!) who have to call in favours to cover childcare. Also, the children often get upset if they do mornings, then afternoons or whatever format has been decided. I've had to try lots of scenarios but what worked best for my class & I was when we had 1/2 the class Mon & Wed, other half Tues & Thurs & the whole lot on Friday (whole days) Class settled, kids happy, parents happy, job done!

MogTheForgetfulCat · 14/09/2010 22:12

DS1 has just started reception - they have 5 weeks of half days. And the half days change between mornings and afternoons from week to week. Tis a pain. I work part-time, so not TOO bad for us, and I have saved some holiday so taking 2 of the weeks off completely. Still a pain, though.

DS1 has done his full funded allocation at pre-school, plus a bit more (2 half days and 1 full day) since he was 3ish, so I was a bit Hmm that he'd need a lot of settling-in time. He has been pretty tired, though, even on the week when he was doing afternoons - which was only 2 hours! So maybe it's a good thing? Dunno.

allbie · 14/09/2010 22:31

Why do you all need to be rid of your kids into the bloody system that starts the dictation of their lives? I loathe the fact that my DS4 has to go to school at all.He's was 4 in August. I want him to do till just after lunch only for as long as possible and yes, I do work.We need to make it so children are five before full time school.

EvilTwins · 14/09/2010 22:35

My DTDs are just 4 and are doing mornings only until Sept 30th. Inconvenient BUT nowhere near as inconvenient as many of their friends, who seem to be doing the whole mornings one week, afternoons the next week, then mornings with two lunches, then mornings plus lunches etc etc until after half term. I count myself quite lucky!

They're absolutely exhausted by the time DH picks them up at 12 though. At first I really couldn't see the point of doing the part time thing, but having seen the state of them, I am beginning to see that it is quite sensible.

When I was 4, I did one day a week at school for an entire term,so this is nothing new, it woudl seem.

FiveGoMadInDorset · 14/09/2010 22:38

DD is half days until half term except for one day. They have slpit her class nto 3 groups and keep one group for an afternoon until 3.

curlymama · 14/09/2010 22:39

Our school did half days until half term. I liked it that way, the children were more than ready to do full days, and didn't get overwhelmed right at the start of their very long school career. They got to be excited about starting, and then excited about getting to stay for lunch. Over tired children that have just been thrown into five days full time might be more convenient for the parents, but I can't see how it's better for children.

I can see why it's a PITA for working parents, but oddly enough, schools aren't there to cater for the parents.

ilovemydogandMrObama · 14/09/2010 22:39

DD (4) has a staggered start until October, but it was noted in the recent OFSTED report that the children were very settled, so there seems to be a point to the exercise.

She is so tired already so am thinking full time is going to be too much...

BubsMaw · 14/09/2010 22:47

The summer born kids at our school don't go full time 'til after easter !! That's two whole terms of 3 hrs per day. 'Tis ridiculous.

We also have a whole month of two hours per day, random morning then afternoon pattern for settling in prior to the regular 3hrs in mornings only. So far DD has found it all very unsettling. She's used to 10hr days at nursery.

Headmaster told me "we cater to the needs of the children, not their parents" when I queried the sense of it.

musicposy · 14/09/2010 23:26

allbie head on over to the home ed board? It's a serious suggestion, even if only for a term or two.

Sorry for the thread hijack! Wink

ChippingIn · 14/09/2010 23:44

The local school do afternoons for the first week, then mornings for 4 weeks, then mornings & lunch for 3 weeks and this year have started full days after that because of Christmas preps (used to be only half days till after Christmas) and like you say, most of the kids have been full time nursery so it's a bit pointless. It should be optional afternoons for children that just can't cope with it.

It's all well & good to say that the schools aren't there to cater to the parents, but the fact is that many families rely on both parents working and getting part time care for a term or two isn't easy. It's daft to go from full time nursery, to part time school, back to full time school...

booyhoo · 14/09/2010 23:49

ds's school has 2 and a half weeks at 9-12 and from monday it will be 9-2.

you have to remember that even though some of teh children will have been at nursery they have also had the whole summer break to gett out of the school routine and it takes a bit of adjusting to get back into it. surely a couple of weeks inconvenience is preferable to having a badly adjusted child that is too exhausted to get up in the morning and enjoy school when they are there. it isn't really about what is good for the parents tbh, it is about what is good for the children.

whatkatydidathome · 15/09/2010 00:16

our school does 4 weeks. I like it as ds has not been in full time child care. However I'd have thought that anyone who wanted to could ask the school to take their child FT from day one as the council are abliged to provide you with a FT school place.

whatkatydidathome · 15/09/2010 00:18

-albie- I agree with you and would rather they went far later. you do not have to send them though - legally they do not have to go until they are 5. You do not even have to home educate - you can just not send them.

whatkatydidathome · 15/09/2010 00:21

curlymama I'm not sure about the schools not catering for the parents argument. I agree that this is not their primary purpose but I also think that we (the parents) are actually paying for these schools via our taxes and so shoudl be getting some say in the way in which the system is run. Schools IMO do often seem to forget that it is the parents ultimately who pay their wages.