to think the whole "phasing in" thing at school is just a PITA!

[Maggietess]

DD2 starts school tomorrow, the equivalent of reception class. We have first day she stays for an hour with mum or dad (great idea). Rest of this week shes in for 2 1/2 hours a day (OK I'm still with the idea in general).

Then some more kids start next week so we've another week of in til 1130.
Then the week after its 1230.
Then finally in the 4th week it's full day til 2.

And this is the improved version of settling in, it used to take nearly til halloween to get them all in with a couple of kids starting every day.

I can understand the teachers needing a couple of days, even a week to properly get to know everyone but is 3 full weeks of it not a bit ott???

They then repeat a slightly shortened version of this in P1.

Add to that that our junior school finishes at 2 and senior school at 3 and you have some parents doing collections at 12.30, 2 and 3. Total pita.

Surely its all just a bit unnecessary given that most kids these days will have been at some form of nursery before??

Or AIBtotallyU?

:) have I touched a nerve? Oops

I feel that the point is UNLESS there is a very strong arguument for a lengthy part-time start (and the experience of schools where all children start full time immediately with no significant problems suggests that there is no very strong argument), then full time should be actively offered from Day 1. part time (mornings only) should be requestable by parents who wish it, or (in a very few cases) where school and parent together decide that it is the option in the child's individual best interests.

It is not fair to say that if parents find lengthy staggered starts a problem that they cannot afford to have children. The issue being discussed here is not the need for childcare before and after normal school hours, but the EXTRA, and often very hard to find, childcare to fit around highly changeable short-term part-time school hours at the beginning of the Autumn term.

Schools should be weighing up the genuine educational advantages (if any) of staggered and part time starts against the inconvenience caused to parents. If the educational advantage is massive, then of course the inconvenience is justified. I personally don't think that the evidence for very significant educational advantage is there.

ROFL @ overthefields.

So anyone who finds it tricky to cover 6 weeks of un-necessary total routine disruption should not have had any children in the first place! Love it.

Will you be alerting SS to this thread. I think you should. I am sure they have an emergency number.

ROLF....I am SS.

"OverTheFieldsAndFarAway Sun 01-Sep-13 21:17:05
It seems that putting your child's needs before your own is a thing of the past."

But why do we assume all children need such lengthy settling in times?

I assume my DD benefits from the fact me and Dh go out to work and earn money in order to provide a home, food, clothes and the likes - however, many workplaces do not have the flexibility to be able to work round lengthy settling in periods, so would it be better for one of us to not work in order to fit in around it instead?

I work in a school, an infant school with a lengthy settling in period. My own HT would not be able to allow her staff to have flexible working hours in order to accomodate this for their own children!So, if the HT won't allow it for their own staff - why should they expect other parents to have to do it?

overthefields telling people that they should never have had their children is always going to upset people. I think you know that, though.

:) Speaking for myself, you haven't touched a nerve so much as revealed yourself as rather out of touch, over. Oops.

Overthefields, can you see that there is a difference between the long-term balance between work, school and childcare for working parents throughout children's school years (which people do juggle, successfully, all the time) and a very specific, very hard to cover, short term need caused by extended staggered and part time starts? Suggesting that parents should not have children, or that they are fitting children round their jobs, because of a single 4-5 week blip in otherwise well-balanced arrangements is overstating your case.

Take a working mum who arranges good-quality nursery care for her very young children, then arranges good before and after school care for them once they are in school. Se can absolutely afford to have children, and balances children and work brilliantly.

Then, for a single 4 week period, she can only attend work for a couple of hours each day, because descpite having great chiuldcare around a full school day, she doesn't have it around a shortened one.

Are you really saying that someone who finds this very, very difficult should not have children??

I must be out of touch...but I have very happy kids:)

Not touched a nerve for me, no. DD's primary doesn't have a lengthy settling in period - they go FT from day 1. All cope perfectly fine as school offer flexibility in the initial weeks and if a child needs a bit of time out then parents can chose to take them home a bit early or have a day off then that is arranged between them. So actually I have never been affected by any of it.

teacherwith2kids... Yes!!! What you said!!!! That's exactly what I'm been trying to say in a not-so-concise and coherent way since my opening post!!! [smile

As I said further up thread read I had a very unhappy little bit in reception who needs routine & continuity

This phasing in, change to routine is a nightmare got ASD children.

teacher well yes I think she is.

And she is a social worker.

I must admit that watching the news, I thought the SS bar for "they should never have had children" levels of concern was a bit higher than this

I think her posts are goady, personally, which doesn't imply a "happy" personal situation to me.

Although I emphasise it wasn't his school that was the problem who go full time from day one - it was a medical problem.

Surely not a social worker while her children were of school age though

And overthefields I find it a bit sad if you are indeed a SS and are so judgemental about parents having concerns over things they find difficult (and cant understand the reasons for them) that your response is well you shouldn't have had children.

As a parent one of the things I've leaned is to always question "why" when someone tells me something is best for my child. I know my children really well and I'll happily take advice on what's in their best interests but I don't think questioning whether phasing in is either necessary or in my dcs' best interests means I shouldn't have had them in the first place.

The SW has spoken magietess.

Any chance you can pop them back up?

I think our school have got it right:

Each Parent chooses from Option A or Option B.

Option A: Full-time from 12th September (Home visits take place between 4th September and 10th September).

Option B: Part time from 11th September (to allow a quieter beginning for more nervous children). Parents choose between 5 and 9 sessions per week (a session being either morning or afternoon) that their child will attend between 11th September and half-term. Parents commit to those chosen sessions each week - no changing from week to week.

That means that parents can choose to have their children in all mornings, all afternoons, full day on Monday and Wednesday plus half days Tues, Thurs, Fri...whatever works for them their child.

DD3 will be taking Option A. I'm there morning and afternoon to drop and collect DD2 anyway and DD3 will not cope with seeing friends come and go at different points in the day while she is/isn't at school. For her, it's much better to know where she is.

And over bare in mind that many children are at schools that parents did not choose. specifically for that reason. That severe shortages of places has meant that all plans have had to go out the window as they are not possible at the school that's five miles away that even parents moved into catchment for another school never foresaw they would get.

ROLF I am SS

Who is Rolf? Do you mean Rolf Harris?

ROL@ acrylic

SS got no time for Rolf

Too busy telling parents who are experiencing potentially unnecessary organisational difficulties that they should never have had children in the first place. They should have foreseen the 2-6 weeks difficulty in Reception, and their family's employment situation, a few years later and on that basis stopped with the whole impregnation scenario.

It's only fair and reasonable.

I mean why should taxpayers have to support... oh no hold on... erm. Something like that anyway.

teacherwith2kids that is really interesting. I do wonder if ours will move into the local community centre when the space is reclaimed. If they moved into the canteen they would have to stop all sports after school clubs as it is also the gym hall. We have a pre school too but that is strictly in school hours- no weekend or wrap around. It would be pretty controversial if the council were to call for it to open longer hours as it would radically change the contracts of the staff.

Yes how dare people get made redundant and have to take a new job or loose their home. How dare we not foresee high birth years to avoid not getting chosen schools. How dare we not quiz head teachers on their starting polices from date of conception just In case it changes. How dare we not enforce buses to run to our own convenience. We must all make our parents retire and learn to drive or re locate near us so that they can indeed collect children to avoid this hassle. Yes we should see five years into the future to stop it all being so bloody tough.

Nicetabard a couple of mine came out the sunroof and they're lanky kids these days so I don't think they'd fit pop anywhere!!

Just going to think about potential universities so I don't screw that up by not planning adequately for being stressed during freshers week....