Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
BoneyBackJefferson · 22/09/2010 18:55

with you till
"Talk about inconvenience for parents"
you think this is inconvenient, its just starting.

strandedatsea · 22/09/2010 19:48

Tbh the thing about 4 being too young for school is as much to do with the other children as the 4-year-olds for me. From the perspective of my dd1, who is reading already, I would like her to be able to go at the pace she is ready for rather than the pace of - understandably - the much younger children (or at least most of them - I totally recognise there will be some who are more advanced than others).
In an ideal world there would be two classes for reception, those born Sept - May and those who are May - August. In the school she will be going to in Jan, they do split them in year 1 so the older ones go with the younger ones from the year above. In reality I still can't quite work out how this works but I guess I will find out soon enough!

pointydog · 22/09/2010 19:57

I think it's outdated.

One local authority has children in full-time from the second or third day and another LA nearby waits for 4 weeks.

It's silly.

Meglet · 22/09/2010 20:31

My collegue has had to take un-paid parental leave this month to cover her DC's irregular reception class hours.

TBH I would be happy for my dc's to go straight into a full day, they do 9 - 5:45 at nursery so a school day shouldn't cause any problems.

NotanOtter · 22/09/2010 20:39

agree - it's hell and an awful lot of kids are used to much longer days

midnightexpress · 22/09/2010 20:42

The school day is completely different from a nursery day though, IMO. It's much more structured, and there's a lot more 'concentrating' on stuff required.
We had 4 weeks of half days, and after 1.5 weeks now of full days (we're in Scotland so started back in August) ds1 is knackered. Thank goodness we have a long bank holiday this weekend (Fri/Mon) then two inset days so he'll get a bit of respite. I'm dreading December if this week has been anything to go by.

shivster1980 · 22/09/2010 20:45

1st day DS started at 10.30 finished at normal hometime.

8.50am - 3.20 every day since.

No gentle starts for us.

DebiTheScot · 22/09/2010 21:46

Halfcaff it's not all of Hampshire that does that. We're Hampshire and ds1s school has done it really well (1 week mornings, 1 wk mornings plus lunch then full-time for everyone) but other schools in the area have done different things.

I think in theory you can keep them out of school till they're 5 but if you live somewhere with oversubscribed schools they probably wouldn't hold a place.

I know schools don't have to take working parents into consideration but putting them in a position where they are forced to take unpaid leave is inconsiderate. Esp when it's silly bits of days all at different times. And what if both parents have jobs like teachers for example where they can't take time off?

And I think most kids like routine so agree it's unsettling doing odd hours.

camaleon · 22/09/2010 22:03

I only have experience with one school, and as I said it was the lack of certainty that killed us. It was really difficult for everybody but most of all to my child. Instead of settling her in she got very confused and had a very bad start (she was until then dying to start school).

I believe a settling in period is probably good for all kids. In my limited experience nursery and reception are very different. Already the huge difference in numbers/ratios child-adult makes it a different experience.

But from what I read our school and its system of taking months to settle children in without telling how long is going to take (3 months for my winter child coming from nursery, much more for others) and without any clear routine, is an exception.

2 weeks and a half seems very reasonable to me. Allowing children under five to take longer if the parents think is necessary is also great. It is the inconsistency of it all that makes me very suspicious about this being really working for the sake of children.

yummypopcorn · 22/09/2010 22:22

DebiTheScot "I think in theory you can keep them out of school till they're 5 but if you live somewhere with oversubscribed schools they probably wouldn't hold a place."

Schools can't give a child's place away. They must keep it open.

I think next year things will be much simpler. All children, full time, unless parents opt for part time or keeping LO at hime until 5.

belgina · 22/09/2010 22:32

I think children do start too early in this country. Where I'm from a lot of children are in full time 'nursery school' for 3 years, but it's not too structured and not like reception in this country.
As for a settling in period. I think 1 week should be enough: 1 week of half days to get used to the school and then onto full time. TBH both ds and dd1 would have been fine full time from day 1, but they are both born quite early in the school year. In fact dd1 was very dissapointed that she didn't get to eat at school like her big brother when she started reception. Now in Y2, she's slightly less excited about school dinners [girn]

barbarapym · 22/09/2010 23:50

We have a whole term of half days - and ds had two terms as he has an August birthday. Totally over the top, and I think probably financially motivated.

nappyaddict · 23/09/2010 09:22

Am I the only one who thinks alternate mornings and afternoons is actually a good idea for a week or two?

WhistlersMum · 23/09/2010 10:02

My summer born dd did mornings only for the first term. Every lunch hour, I drove 20 minutes to school to fetch her, 20 minutes to take her to the day nursery she had been attending for the previous 4 years, where lunch was kept warm for her, and then 20 minutes back to the office. I was lucky: 1) none of the "legs" took more than 20 minutes; 2) the nursery were prepared to do this, provided I paid for the whole day; 3) my work didn't mind my leaving for lunch at 11.30; 4) I'm not a big eater. Fortunately dd didn't mind at all and enjoyed swanning around at nursery all afternoon in her school uniform. The bonus of this arrangement was that she could do full days at nursery at half term and Christmas. I heaved a sigh of relief when her teacher agreed to full days the following term as this was at the teacher's discretion.

DomesticG0ddess · 23/09/2010 10:11

nappyaddict, it sounds like a good idea to me, or something similar! Not all kids are in full time care before they go to school and to go from zero to hero without a little transition time seems like a lot for a 4 year old. That said, I don't have one school age yet, he goes next year. But he has just started doing the 1 full day at preschool, in addition to his couple of mornings, and although he loves it, he is knackered at the end of that day. Some of the kids that go up to school have only just turned 4!

What's 2 weeks in the grand scheme of things, if it helps your kids settle? It's only the one time in what 14 years of education?? It shouldn't be about what's convenient for parents imho.

SweetBeadieRussell · 23/09/2010 10:24

DD1 doesn't start full time until January, she's on half days till then. Part of me wishes they'd just get on with it, as it's hard to get anything done with dd2 with only 2 and a bit hours once we get home. Still, here i am frittering it away on mumsnet with the rest of you! Another part of me is saying 'try to appreciate the extra time you have with her, she won't be a sweet, hilarious four year old forever you know'.

rowingboat · 23/09/2010 10:30

We had four weeks of 9-12 which I think has been a great intro to school.
The children have all been very tired at just doing a half day and I think most of the parents agree it has been a good opportunity to introduce the children to the layout, routine and lesson structure of big school.
It is a step up from nursery for the children and they have to do most things for themselves at school.
I think they do find the whole process mentally exhausting and a half day helps them to come to terms with remembering their blazer and not putting on each others clothes after PE.
I can see how it would be a nightmare for working parents. I work in the evenings and at weekend so am lucky.
On the whole I think it is probably better for the children, but not so much for the adults.

supertrooper105 · 23/09/2010 10:46

Our school does half days until half term for those who are 5yrs before 1st march and then the others like mine, don't go full time until after xmas!!!

rowingboat · 23/09/2010 11:40

We are in Scotland, so the children don't need to start until the August after they are five.
However, some people choose to put their children into school when they are four and a half. There is no provision made for children starting when they are younger, so I would think the half days would benefit them in particular.

Niecie · 23/09/2010 11:50

They stagger the starts at our school. Autumn borns get one week part time (8.50 to 12) and then full time. Springs start a week later and get 2 weeks part time and the summer borns start the week after that with 3 weeks part time. Everybody is then FT a week or so before half term.

It works well and because it allows the teachers to focus on a small group of children as they start every week and she doesn't have 30 children all starting at the same time.

The part time is good because it is quite a strain on them. I remember well how grey with tiredness DS2 was on his first day at school. I thought he was ill he was so unlike himself. However, 2 hours of cuddles and a DVD together and he was back to normal by the time we went to get DS1 at normal finish time. I think we underestimate how hard it is for small children sometimes. DS was used to full time pre-school days but it is still a big change.

DS1 on the other hand hated coming home early for his 3 weeks of part time. Shame that love of school didn't last!!!

I agree it must be tough for FT working parents but it isn't forever and I think the pros for the children outweigh the cons for the parents.

emptyshell · 23/09/2010 12:10

When I taught reception, because of the nature of the catchment area (and LEA policy that everyone started in September, not staggered Sept/Jan/Easter starts according to birth month) we had to have everyone start full-time from day one.

It was because we were the Catholic primary for three parishes across quite a rural area, so lots of the children were bussed in on LEA transport from three different directions. So not only were they starting school full-time, but they were getting on busses (with escorts obviously) and being met by mums and dads at the other end.

Surprisingly - considering how rough it sounds - they all coped admirably (I think we had one habitual morning crier for a while, and another little girl constantly bemused by the fact that pesky Monday thing kept sneaking up on her "Miss it's Monday AGAIN!" and sounding very cross about it - I know how she felt!).

Friend's little girl went in first day of school, mum was stood fretting about it - her little girl turned around to her and told her to go home and get a cup of coffee!

pennymorris · 23/09/2010 12:20

You're all lucky - my DS1's school only does 9am-12pm until January! I's not just the cost involved with having to do after-school club, but why should it take 3 months to get used to doing what is a short day anyway.

Karoleann · 23/09/2010 13:11

DS1 (late May birthday) went full time from day one - no settling in probs at all. I think its more unsettling to get used to one routine and then change it a week/two weeks later.
One of my friends little ones only went in for 10 minutes on the first day!! I think I would have made an excuse and not bothered!

DownyEmerald · 23/09/2010 13:27

I'm happy for mine to start part time (three weeks til 12.15, then two weeks after lunch). Even tho' it is inconvenient. She is 4.5 but still napped occasionally at her childminders, and she did go to playgroup but that was only 'til 12. So I was really worried about how shattered she would be.

And I do work (albeit part-time). I took unpaid leave for the first two weeks. I do think it is a big thing and best to take it slowly - for me as well as for dd. But I think they could have shaved a week off!

It's a mixed class as well so the Year 1s are getting some valuable time with the teacher, which I think will help point up the difference between being in Reception and being in Year 1.

HalfCaff · 23/09/2010 13:38

I do agree that school starts too early for some and of course it's not all about free childcare for working parents. It's the length of time with all the odd hours that is impossible to cover with childminders, existing nursery arrangements, etc. As soon as they start school you lose all your early years grant, and your child would be extra confused and exhausted if other new arrangements were brought in at the same time as starting school. My own dcs were perfectly ready for school when they started but I know many are not, and I would support parents' choice to keep them at home or in part time nursery or whatever they are used to until they are 5.
Another thought, the majority of the time it is the mum who is the one taking unpaid leave and/or relying on goodwill from colleagues and bosses. Whoops, mind your head on that glass ceiling! Looks like another feminist issue to me.