Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
iwouldgoouttonight · 22/09/2010 12:26

My DS turned 4 at the end of August and started full days 8.50am-3.30pm at school from day one at the beginning of September.

I thought it was a bit full on and would have liked him to have had a couple of half days to get him used to it, but going in at the deep end seems to have worked because he's settled really well (touch wood!).

PercyPigPie · 22/09/2010 12:29

Yeah, God forbid they inconvenience the parents. I'm mean it's only one of the biggest changes in their little lives.

Cazzr · 22/09/2010 12:50

The thing that bugged me the most about our scheduled hours is that they thought the youngest age group would benefit from starting at 1215 on their first day. Just when they are starting to get tired....
I'm all for letting them settle in but this seemed to me to be more about ease for the teacher, not the child.

I think rather than making assumptions on what a child can cope with based on their age, they should consider the child's ability to cope.

DS was in full time childcare before and was fine with that, but now he's had more disruption through starting at odd times of the day than he's ever had.

We were 'offered' for him to start at a later date, because there was no flexibility with the head teacher other than what was offered but DS was ready and keen to get there.
As it happens, when in conversation with the teacher, she was happy for him to start f/t earlier, it's the head teacher who isn't...

Oldjolyon · 22/09/2010 12:54

I think the half days, days on days off is actually really inconvenient for the children, and for some really unsettling.

Some children really like routine, and they spend all their time at preschool / nursery / summer hols etc having this big build up to school, and then they get there, do one day and then find out they've not got to back again until next week.

My DDs are used to doing school days at the local nursery, because that is the hours I work, but I know DD2 likes to know what she is doing and when and I know already that her routine has changed this year (some days at nursery and some days at the childminder's) and she has found that really unnerving and unsettling because she does not know where she stands, and she does not know where she is on a given day. Now that we're settling into the routine, she is getting used to it and getting happier. But I am dreading next year when she starts school because she'll be doing different things (days on, days off, some mornings, some full days) until the Oct half term and there's no pattern to it. She won't like that at all.

Tiredness is not the only factor that schools should be considering when planning in their 'phasing in' period. Surely my child isn't the only one who gets unsettled by inconsistency? I think schools should consider this too.

nappyaddict · 22/09/2010 13:32

Would it work for instance if in the first week Monday-Wednesday were mornings, Thursday-Friday were afternoons. In the second week Mon-Wed were mornings including lunch and Thurs-Fri were afternoons starting with lunch. Then full time from week 3.

emmie31 · 22/09/2010 13:58

my childs school is doing 2 hours in the afternoon and this is for a total of 6 weeks! thank goodness I'm off on maternity leave or we'd be finding it difficult.

mizu · 22/09/2010 14:06

We have been doing alternate mornings (8.45-12) and afternoons (1-3) since 2nd September and my dd will not be going full time til 18th October. So 6 weeks and 2 days. I work part time as a teacher and so have roped in the entire family to help out. It is very stressful.

HalfCaff · 22/09/2010 14:22

Hampshire does a complicated system of 2,3 or 4 weeks depending on the date of birth and chops and changes with a.m./p.m. sessions - nightmare. I work 4 days a week and wrote a letter pleading form ds to go in with the slightly older (he is early Feb so is clssified as a 'spring' baby!) ones and was granted this concession as I explained I did not have enough annual leave to cover

Shoshe · 22/09/2010 14:30

Ha here its half days till Christmas, and if like me you are a CM, you end up doing three school runs till Christmas every year, why?????

PavlovtheCat · 22/09/2010 14:39

2 half days including lunch, before the official start week here, so thurs and friday before they did 8:50am-1:30pm.

Following week, full time, although up to parents and teachers to decide if the individual child can cope with full days/full weeks.

Apart from the normal complete meltdowns that many people are experiencing from first weeks in school, and the sudden 'i don't know' or 'not reaaaally' in response to everything, its going fine for July born DD.

crazymum53 · 22/09/2010 14:48

Your system sounds good. At my dds school they started off with a visit that was only one hour - a week after other year groups started school. Then it was mornings only for 2 weeks, mornings plus lunch for another week and finally full time!

My dd has an October birthday and I found it very unfair that younger children who had attended full time nursery started full time school beforehand.

But have to add that although it was annoying at the time it has made very little difference in the long term.

grammar · 22/09/2010 15:20

Ours have 3 and a half hours (mornings til 11.55) 'til Christmas! Only in January do they do the whole day, 'til 2.45.
Three weeks of disruption seems small fry to 3 and a half months.Very difficult if you work, I've done this 3 times over.

carriedababi · 22/09/2010 15:21

yabu.

i think just doing mornings is a much better idea, until at least half term.

CatIsSleepy · 22/09/2010 15:38

tbh i wish we had had a lead in, dd1 started school this week and is full-time from the start. She is knackered already and was thoroughly miserable this morning Sad

DreamTeamGirl · 22/09/2010 15:49

I thought it was excessive and annoying, but it actually was about right

We did 1 week of mornings before lunch, 1 week till after lunch then full time
Was a bout right for him, despite being in full time childcare for 4 years he was exhausted by it all at first and would not have coped at all well with full time form day 1

Yes it was a damn nuisance as I am single mum working full time, but better that he had a safe and happy start, so IMO YABU

sonotboden · 22/09/2010 16:24

my dd is a november birthday and will be offered a reception place the september before she is five. Is there any reason why i can't keep her at nursery until the January and start her at school then? presumably the school has to provide full time from the term after their fifth birthday?

strandedatsea · 22/09/2010 16:29

My dd started full time - 8-3 - from day one. They had a couple of orientation days the week before where they did two days of 2 hours. The system works well, the children all seem happy, my dd1 is loving it. She is a little more tired in the late afternoons but that could be because she is also having swimming lessons two times a week.

However, it helped that she was already at the school's pre-school so knew most of the children in her class and had met the teachers, plus the environment is a familiar one. The school (a private Montessori) also only sends children up to reception when they are ready - so most of them are either already five or rising five, I don't think there are many, or any, who will still be 4 by Christmas.

I agree with whoever said 4 is too young to start school, especially those who have only just turned 4.

strandedatsea · 22/09/2010 16:32

sonotboden - legally your child doesn't have to start school until the term after they turn 5 (I learnt all this because we are returning to the UK for my dd1 to start reception in our local school and found out we could delay until January at the latest). However, I am not sure whether different schools have different policies on holding a place? I am assuming that if you have a place your child doesn't actually have to go to school until January - but the school might not be happy if you don't tell them this is what you are doing.

I also think it's better for the child to start with all their classmates. I am quite worried about my dd settling in when everyone else will already know each other and have made friends.

Blondeshavemorefun · 22/09/2010 16:36

completly insane all this 3hrs at school, then having lunch then picking up at 1pm etcGrin

luckily our school went striaght in with 8.50-3.15 :)

Hai1988 · 22/09/2010 16:59

think youself lucky, DS is only doing half days until january !

Dancergirl · 22/09/2010 17:01

YABU

You have years and years ahead for your child to go to school full-time. Enjoy the time with your child while you can! Why the rush?

I actually think the whole system is wrong and children attend full-time school far too early. When I saw some of the new reception children start at dds's school this week, I thought some of them are so tiny, they're too young for school - it just felt 'wrong'.

I know it's a pain for working parents but really, the school isn't there to provide childcare for your child. I think staggered entry and lead-in to full days is a great idea. Not only for the children but the teachers and TAs too - it must be a nightmare for them to have to deal with 30 new/unsure/tired children.

Cazzr · 22/09/2010 17:57

It does confuse me a bit with people saying they are too young for school. I mean, Year R is hardly school, apart from the uniform I haven't really seen a difference between year R and pre-school.
DS is 4 and 4 months and apart from a couple of days being reluctant to let me leave (he's been fine once I have) has absolutely loved his time there and is excited to show me his 'work' when he comes running out after school.

Again, I think it should be decided on an individual basis between parent and teacher but a couple of weeks lead in is fine IMHO. 3 months, like we have ahead of us?!! Bonkers.

MrsTicklemouse · 22/09/2010 18:16

I'm glad we're not the only ones with ridiculous start! We've had...

Week 1 12:30-3:20
Week 2 8:50-11:30
Week 3 and 4 8:50-1
Week 5 8:50-3:20

It's stupid, we're both exhausted from the messing around not the time he's there, it's made worse by the fact none of the times fit in with the connected playgroup that DS2 attends so some days we've walked 4 miles just doing the school run!

If the first week was mornings then full time it would be fine but this much messing around certainly doesn't do children of that age any good! I'm just grateful I don't work full time!

octopusinabox · 22/09/2010 18:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

brassband · 22/09/2010 18:50

All the schools round here do fulltime from day 1 (although of course parents can send them part time if they want)

Swipe left for the next trending thread