Staged/part time starting of school is unfair?

[FurierTransform]

My DD has just started reception.
The school she's attending have this system where the children don't all start on the Monday full time, but have 4 x 2-3 hour sessions, spread across 2 weeks, to 'ease into it' before attending full hours.

AIBU to think this is totally ridiculous?

I'm sure many people have had to take 2 weeks holiday from their work to bridge this gap between their children finishing nursery, and actually starting school full time, so potentially now will have to forgo a summer holiday, or work over Christmas etc!
Luckily we have flexible jobs so have just about coped.

Seems so ill thought out and inconsiderate to families with 2 working parents.

Yes our school did this and it was a pain to work around.
I think you can ask for your child to start full time from the start. I don't think they can refuse you.

It is ridiculous but you should be able to request full time. Most schools don’t make it a known option though.

Yeah, I’m with you on this! I’d think it’s far better to send all 30 children into school from day 1 and leave them to it! PFFF, teachers these days have it sooo cushy!

I agreed before the new school years as I work and my DC has been to nursery and preschool since he was 18 months old and I didn’t feel like he needed the easing in. He has actually really struggled with his first 2 morning sessions and been quite upset so now I’m glad they’re only short while he settles in.

Ah you're kidding me, I had no idea it was an option - it was just explained as 'this is the way it is'
I can't see anyone who has actually taken it up at the school - fairly sure all the kids in class have been doing these temporary sessions.

Our school did this for basically the first half term. Was a nightmare, and one of the main reasons I didn't change her nursery to attend the pre school as I'd have been put through it twice. By the time dd2 came along they'd shortened it considerably and I noticed reception kids were there on day 1 this year. The worst thing was I found it was quite unsettling - going for longer and longer each day - dd was worried she was going to have to stay overnight soon! And having to patch together wrap around care meant it felt all out of sync for ages. It should be an option for those who may need it but not compulsory imo.

How is this anything to do with how ‘cushy’ it might be for teachers ffs?
And there’s a massive recruitment and retention crisis precisely because it’s not ‘cushy’.
Why don’t you sign up to do it if it’s such an easy life?

It isn't about what suits the parents, it's about what's best for the children. And most schools obviously think that the children will settle in better if they phase in gradually.

I do get that it's a pain for working parents - DH and I both worked FT and I remember taking leave during that period to facilitate the pick-ups. However, it's just 2 weeks in your child's life, surely most parents can make the effort to accommodate it?

Of course, if neither parent can get the time off work and have no other options, it's worth speaking to the school to see what alternatives they might be able to offer. But I don't think it's a particularly big ask, personally.

I think it’s better for the children to start fulltime from day 1. The vast majority will have been to nursery from at least age 3, if not before. Obviously if an individual child needs a staggered start it should be accommodated but the default should be full days from the beginning, they get used to it much more quickly.

That sounds excessive - doing four random sessions over two weeks won’t settle them in, the timings, rhythm of the school day etc will still be new to them in week 3!

Ours does 12 finish for first week, 1 finish for the second. Which is still hard for working parents to juggle but I can see the actual benefit for the child.

A school near us attempted to put a mandatory three week part time schedule in place but had to reduce it to two because parents just couldn’t support it.

Better for who, exactly? I think the main purpose of it is to give the teachers time to settle the children in smaller groups and to ease them in gradually. They aren't just putting their feet up!!

Children are entitled to a full time education from the start of reception.

Admission authorities must provide for the admission of all children in the September following their fourth birthday. The authority must make it clear in their arrangements that where they have offered a child a place at a school:

that child is entitled to a full-time place in the September following their fourth birthday;
b) the child’s parents can defer the date their child is admitted to the school until later in the school year but not beyond the point at which they reach compulsory school age and not beyond the beginning of the final term of the school year for which it was made; and

where the parents wish, children may attend part-time until later in the school year but not beyond the point at which they reach compulsory school age.

From the school admissions code
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/school-admissions-code--2

Some schools don't make this clear.

One of our local schools used to do two weeks of mornings and two weeks of afternoons for each child.
My daughter started at a different school and did a week of mornings and a week of afternoons. That was hard enough.

My DC school just offered it as an option. They could start full-time straight away or do half days for a couple of weeks if parents preferred. Made sense.

Given that the majority if Reception age kids have been in pretty much full time nursery/childcare since about 1yo, is it really necessary?

Day one - half the kids in 9.15 - 2.45 (so avoiding the rush of the Yard).
Day two - other half in instead
Day three - all in 9.15-2.45
Day 4 and beyond - all in normal hours.

It's likely based on some outdated notion of what it means in reality though. It comes on the back of having to scrabble about to cover school holidays for any older children when your goodwill at work is running low and everyone else is in back to school mode. So it's a case of scrabbling around to find less than ideal solutions: a temporary nanny, a few hours at old nursery, playdate with new friend in same boat - much more unsettling than "this is school. It's like nursery but different. Well see you at pick up. "

Over a couple of weeks is ridiculous. Perhaps a few days or a week is fine, but many children go to nursery for days that are longer than a school day, so very used to it.

Our son was in nursery four full days a week and then had just one hour for each of the first two days! Those who'd been at the school nursery last year got two whole mornings, so instead of easing him in gently to a whole load of new pupils, he had two one-hour sessions with just 3 of them, then started on the third day with everyone for a full day!

So not exactly a transition for him!

Our school has actually just stopped doing a phased entry for primary ones (we are in Scotland) after having done it for quite some time. But some in the same LA area are still doing it.

I agree! And I think so do all the people who post the same thing every September on MN…

You’d think we’d have moved with the times!

DD didn't start going in "full time" (I put it in inverted commas because her finishing time for P1/reception was 1.50pm and is now 2pm for P2/Year 1 and P3/Year 2) until Christmas. It was a pain in the neck.

YANBU. Most kids these days won't be going to their first setting at school, most have been at nursery/preschool/childminder etc. Our school isn't too bad, they move them to full-time over the first week and notify parents when their child moves - so the ones who take a little longer stay on half days and most go to full days very quickly.

A different local school has them on half days until nearly Halloween. And I know of a preschool with settling sessions of 45 mins the first week. 45 mins!

All a complete nightmare not just for parents but childcare providers as well. We use an out of school club that aren't affiliated with the school - they collect from multiple schools and have to juggle all of them, it's a real nightmare for them.

With one of my DC I’d already looked up the term start date, given the childminder notice and everything in place for the start on the 5th September. Then got a message from the school saying they were doing a staggered start, starting a small group of the youngest and least confident children first, then adding in more and more groups every half week until all had started. With the oldest and most confident children starting last because they could cope with the crowds etc. They weren’t offering my child ANY school sessions at all until the 28th September. More than three weeks less school than the first starters and meant they wanted my older in the school year DC to be 5 years and nearly 1 month before starting reception!

Our school normally does 9-12 for the first week of P1 then a slight earlier start and finish the next week, think 8.50- 3pm vs 3.25. A fellow twin parent complained that a child was entitled to full time school hours and single handedly made the school change it for our kids years so that they were in 8.50-3.25 straight away. Been the usual shorter hours since again since then.

At my DD's school they are allowing the kids who went to the school nursery two part days this week.

We were only offered the part days on Tuesday when we queried when DD was supposed to start. So it is clear most parents didn't take them up on the offer.

Anyway my DD starts full-time reception on Monday.

My teacher friends are generally in favour of this, despite knowing it’s a nightmare for childcare, having struggled when their own children did it.

They feel they get to know the kids better in smaller groups. Some of their schools have trialled all the kids in full time from day one and a lot of the kids struggled and took longer to settle so they’ve gone back to staggered starts.