To think the Reception settling-in period is way too slow?

[MerryMarigold]

It struck me today as I work in a preschool and had 2 of my summer leavers come to visit me, who are starting Reception and neither of them were in school! Chatting to mums they told me of the very slow start to Reception and I was really surprised. I had a 2 year old start today (about 28 months), who was in from 9am-12pm. The only time she cried was at pick up time because she didn't want to go home! Now, I'm well aware not all kids are like that, and sometimes we call parents to pick their children up if they are very upset and they build up to longer periods maybe over a week (max) but to be honest, this is quite rare. Others who are a bit older, like two 3 year olds who started yesterday, will stay till after lunch for a couple of days and then do a full day (no tears or clinginess from them either), just having loads of fun.

So why is the default Reception settling-in so ridiculously drawn out? These children are 4 going on 5 and the majority have been in a preschool or nursery for at least a year already so used to being in a setting for a decent length of time. I said Goodbye to my 4 year olds in the Summer and they were more than ready for school, yet for Reception they are going in for 1 hr a day for several days then 2 hours, then lunch, very gradually building to a whole day. I'm just shocked it takes so long (sometimes 3-4 weeks) to go to a full school day. I'm sure kids are well able to handle much more than this so it feels like really low expectations to me. Obviously if a child was really struggling the school could be flexible on hours, but I believe the majority of children could go all day within a week without a fuss. My own kids are now in Y10 and Y8 and it definitely wasn't that slow for them.

Is there a decent rationale for this? Do other countries do it so slowly? Do parents prefer it this way? What do you all think?

I’m fine with it. I presume it’s to work with those who haven’t been in formal childcare to get used to it and slowly bring everyone up to speed.

We are 2 hrs first 3 days, 3 hrs next 2 days then next week is half day mon - Weds (as the whole year group) and full day Thursday onwards. I think it’s enough to build it up.

It’s not the default. The school I work in, they all start on the same day, are there full
Time every day from then.

My DD has done three half hour sessions; two in July and one today and starts full time tomorrow, I was pleasantly surprised, she transferred from private nursery's pre-school.

Realised that DD2 who will go to school nursery won't start until about the 10th next year and will then do two weeks of 3 hours until starting about 27th 80 out of the 90 kids in the reception intake went to the pre-school so that's why they're not too phased on reception intake I guess. How the fuck am I meant to juggle that in September when I'm married to a teacher (so it's all on me)?! She can't stay at nursery and do split days. It's not geared up for working parents at all. She's been in childcare for 4-5 days a week since she was 11mo and does 8-4ish so capable of 9-3 at school.

It's nit that long and I think if the environment is different it will help kids to gradually settle in, they are not adults

I’m fine with it. I presume it’s to work with those who haven’t been in formal childcare to get used to it and slowly bring everyone up to speed.

I really don't think it is. All the schools I know who still do staggered starts only do so because no one has challenged them on it rather than because its best practice.

It's certainly not better for the children and in my honest opinion and experience it does nothing to ease them in as the days are so different from a normal full day. So they end up thinking school ends after lunch for example and then unsurprisingly they get confused about why they don't go home after dinner when they eventually start full time.

That's not even mentioning the confusion and upset for the poor kids who leave nursery with a lot of emphasis on moving up to big school only to find themselves back at nursery a few weeks later because their school is doing a staggered start.

Se of these starts are just ridiculous and I have no idea how working parents cope...
My boy turned 4 a week before he started school... He did a morning, morning with lunch and then all day the Friday... In full time from then on.
This was fine for all but 2 of the 45 that started. One is still a very nervous child years later. The other had never been to nursery or preschool before

Such is the expectation that one parent is totally available throughout primary, I used to wonder why they bothered teaching the girls at all, they certainly didn't seem to expect them to have careers. They could just have them all playing with dollies.

By the time DS did a full week it was half term.

Our school start the day after the rest of the school with about 12 R children per class, then another 3-4 each day. So by the end of the second week they're all settled (lots of churn so new families don't have to worry about being 'late').

Seems to work well. The endless half-days etc seems to happen where you have lots of non-working parents who don't object.

Reception staff used this time for doing their 'home visits' with parents - although this year and last these were done virtually. Previously they were in person at the child's house

Virtual visits are much better. Real life visits are so intrusive and all about finding out whether the child comes from a "naice" middle class family with books on the shelves. Who decided that this was a good idea and why do parents go along with it - scared of a safeguarding referral or what?

There’s one near me that doesn’t have them in for full days until the October half term. A friend’s son is going there and they basically have a spreadsheet of who’s doing what with which child on which day (as a PP said, brilliant for covid to have 4/5 different arrangements each week…). It’s decimating both parents’ annual leave for the year.

The child in question has been in full time nursery 8-6 since age 1. The nursery won’t take him because their new intake has started and needs to settle there.

I think if schools insist on these sorts of arrangements the right thing to do is to offer onsite provision for the full school day for those that need it (which is, despite all the “school is not childcare” rhetoric, some of what Reception is anyway). Otherwise they’re covering their ears, saying La-La-La and pretending that families on low incomes with two working parents simply don’t exist.

I definitely think it is worse for them doing the part time starts, especially when they have the older children starting sooner, or different groups doing different times.

Both mine went full time from day one, 1 spring born and 1 summer born and both were fine.

They wanted to do this from the September to the October half term when my daughter started reception so 6 weeks of alternating mornings and afternoons and she had been at the school nursery preschool since 2!

I wrote to the head and chair of governors and said that legally my daughter was entitled to a full time space from reception age and that if I was to use my childminder she'd charge for full days instead of wraparound and please could they advise me if they wished me to send her on a full time basis or whether they wanted her to go on half days and the school settle my bill with my childminder over the wraparound amount

I got an email saying if if would be better for me I can send her full time and I just sent her full time they can't legally refuse

Parents have a hard enough job covering 6 weeks of summer holidays if they work never mind this nonsense

It makes no sense at all - sometimes they just need a stern email and after I did that lots of parents followed suite and they had no choice

I feel your pain OP. I'm also on fringes of London suburbia and my youngest are 17 now and they had a ridiculous phased intro drawn out over weeks. What really annoyed me at the time was that even their first day was delayed - they children were introduced in phases alphabetically. So even though my twins were some of the oldest in the year they started last because of our surname.
At least this was better than my eldest (an early Jan birthday) who a few years before in a different school had two terms of mornings before finally going all day at Easter. That cost me a fortune in childminding fees.

@lockdownmadnessdotcom

Reception staff used this time for doing their 'home visits' with parents - although this year and last these were done virtually. Previously they were in person at the child's house

Virtual visits are much better. Real life visits are so intrusive and all about finding out whether the child comes from a "naice" middle class family with books on the shelves. Who decided that this was a good idea and why do parents go along with it - scared of a safeguarding referral or what?

And I NEVER would entertain the school coming to my house to "check us out" Never in a million years

I was always at work and far
Too busy to facilitate this nonsense

When my children started school they went in 10 minutes after the rest of the school on the first day only. After that is was full time, 8:50 to 3:00.

Where I work the reception children have a separate entrance so they just come straight in at the same time as all the other children. I had to down to reception this afternoon, it was their second day in school and they were all happy and totally engaged. All the staggered starts that I hear about from other schools must be so disruptive……

The first couple of days seem to be all kids at home and the teachers doing home visits - because otherwise they'd be doing the visits in their holidays.

When DC1 started 15 years ago the summer borns were part time until mid January - I gave up worm at that point.

My children did 3 weeks of alternative full days then full time. No breakfast or after school club until half term though.
However my son (8 months at the time) had about 6 weeks of settling n to nursery. It was far too long IMO. He honestly would have been fine with about 2.

It’s ridiculous, should be straight in full time with an agreement that any children struggling can be picked up at lunch for the first couple of weeks. A definite area where schools need to get a grip. It’s a nightmare for working parents.

My DS starts tomorrow and his first full day is the 17th. The times each day is slightly different for the 7 days. Earlier this week they had a 10 minute home visit too.

I'm luck because I WFH and am walking distance but I know he would of settled with full days as he was at the school nursery for a year

It does seem long and slow

Zone 4 London. We did an hour on Friday and then she is not in again till next Thursday. We have booked Lego land this Friday and I have had to take a load of AL from work. It is a pain in the ar$e.

Our school started back last Thursday. New starters in Reception did half day Thursday, leaving after lunch and then full days from Friday onwards.

My child’s school explained that the reception start was half days initially to allow the teacher and assistants to get to know the individual children and their needs much quicker. Half the class do morning and half afternoon. It sounds logical that it’s easier to get to know the children and for them to become familiar with a new environment if there are only 15 at a time with the staff initially.

It was full time from day 1 for all my chikdren thankfully, but there are other schools in the area that do a variety of things, including one that starts with an hour a day and takes most of the first half term to build up to full time. It's one of the things that put me off that school actually.
The only way I could have managed it would have been to take A/L for the first couple of weeks, then when they were up to half days I would have had to beg for a long lunch break, then drive as fast as possible to the school, grab the child, take them back or their old nursery (assuming they'd got space), more or less throw them through the door and then dash straight back to work. Then I'd have had to work late to compensate for the long lunch break. That would have been far more upsetting and confusing for my children than starting school straight away. They wouldn't know whether they were coming or going!
These slow starts seem to assume that every child has a parent who is at home all the time or at least family who can do the drop off and pick ups at random times and care for them through the rest of the day. That simply isn't the case and I suspect many children end up being passed from pillar to post as working parents struggle to find solutions. Surely that is exactly the opposite of a gentle transition to school?

Schools seem to forget that most children will have been at preschool for at least half the week and many will have been in full time childcare for 3-4 years 8-6.