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.

It's a long time ago (DS is now 17) but our county made kids go half time (not including lunch) until the term they turned 5. So I had two terms of part days. Despite DS being full time a nursery potentially 8-6pm.

I'm so glad the powers that have seen the light on this - I wrote to my MP suggesting there should be signs as you drove into the county advising you only have sex January to April if you needed to have a job. Luckily there was a nursery next door that would pick up and have DS for a until 3 and then a child minder from 3-6. Financially crippling though!

School isn't childcare, but it can be much more difficult to manage childcare when a child is in school than before and schools do need to take this into account as far as they can.

This.

If you are a working parent you will have been used to arranging and most probably paying for childcare for years. When your child is about to start school you obviously put in place whatever arrangements you need for wrap around care. And then the schools do this and blow up your plans.

Fortunately when DD started the staggered start was recommended but left optional. Almost every child went full time from day one, even those with SAHM.

In DDs case her time away from home actually got less on most days because I moved from four full days work to five short days.

At our local primary, pupils have -

Wed, half the class, morning
Thur, other half, morning
Fri, whole class, morning
From Mon onwards, whole class, full time

It's hard for working parents. You just have to suck it up though

It honestly is a huge transition for the children. Even going from year R to year 1 is tough on some of them. Ive seen a lot of kids this week crying and clinging to their parents at drop off. These are in year 1

So even if they have been in nursery, do not over estimate how your kid is going to settle in

The school know best

When dd3 started school, there was a bulge class added. So they had 90 starting in Reception
The very capable head said that they were ready for all to start on day 1 of term. Only difference being that they would have lunch in their class room and would gradually add into the dinner queue etc.
But she also said that parents were free to send them in part time until half term. Just let them know.

It honestly is a huge transition for the children. Even going from year R to year 1 is tough on some of them. Ive seen a lot of kids this week crying and clinging to their parents at drop off. These are in year 1

So even if they have been in nursery, do not over estimate how your kid is going to settle in

The school know best
This attitude is what really pisses me off as a parent.
I know my children better than people who've just met them.

My pupils' parents know them better than I know them.

Teachers and school staff rub parents up the wrong way when they insist they know the child(ren) better than the parents do.

If a school wants to offer an extended part time offer then they need to make it clear to parents that it's an option that's available and why they believe it's a good option, not tell parents that a week or more part time provision is what is happening and 'forget' to tell parents that their children are entitled to a full time start.

Teachers may think it is better, however the arbitrary setting by age is not helpful. An older child will not necessarily be school ready, a younger child may be well into routines and rules. I understand it's the easy cut off, but perhaps there can be a more holistic approach?

Tbh, as the vast majority of kids have been in childcare, if a class can't ease into it slowly over the first few weeks they're doing something wrong.

Reception isn't yr 3, it is still very play based especially to begin with.

Our school dropped this a few years ago, as the latest evidence was that it was of no benefit to the children. The majority were in nursery at the same school anyway. The rest were in longer days in private nurseries.

They do 5 x 1 hour settling in sessions before the summer, then in as normal from day one.

I would also challenge under the DfE guidance, particularly around part time timetables, which is effectively what you have been offered. Part time timtables are a really focus ( to ensure correct use) in our LA maintained schools ( not academies) as there is scrutiny by senior LA officers and elected council members around the data. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-together-to-improve-school-attendance

I can see both sides, it probably is better (at least for some children) to have a staggered start and for the class as a whole including the teacher, who can then get to know children (and their needs) better. Other settings they have been in probably won't have had a group of 30 all doing the same thing supervised by one person.

But I can see from a practical pov how difficult it is for ft parenting, especially if they've had to juggle annual leave/childcare for the previous 6-7 weeks with older kids.

And the "school isn't childcare" line. We'll it isn't, it's education but there are very few other forms of childcare available during school hours in term time for people to use.

Fizbosshoes
Agree with you. A phased start and part time may be appropriate for some children. That's why parents have the option of part time until the child reaches compulsory school age.

Whether a child takes up their full time entitlement or a part time offer should be a decision for parents to make, not schools.

Some schools turn it on its head and present part time as default and fail to inform parents that their child is entitled to a full time place. If they're that convinced there's solid educational reasons for using part time timetables then they should make the case to parents and let parents decide for their children.

General observation as this comes up every year:
Isn’t it interesting how parents, who a fortnight ago were desperate for their 1, 2 or 3 children to go back to school because they couldn’t cope with them at home, are now suddenly skilled enough to know better than a school full of qualified and experienced teachers how to settle and assess 30, 4-year-olds in an unfamiliar environment?

OP, Just use whatever child-care you would use later on when she's poorly.
You have thought of that, haven’t you?

SnowdaySewday
Parents are allowed to have found the summer difficult at times whilst also expecting school to provide the education that the children are legally entitled to.

It isn't the gotcha you seem to think it is, especially when many schools make appropriate adaptations to promote a smooth transition without trying to push children into a patchwork coverage of ad hoc childcare arrangements at an already big transition.

The school admissions code is clear. Children are entitled to a full time education from the start of Reception.

Parents are able to opt for part time until the child is Compulsory School Age, after which the child must be accessing full time education.

OP, Just use whatever child-care you would use later on when she's poorly.
You have thought of that, haven’t you?

But there are options that you'd have for short bouts of sickness that you wouldn't have for weeks of staggered starts. DH and I take it in turns to have days off when one of the children is ill but his work won't let him do it in a pre-planned longer scenario. Because he's a teacher.

As I said, I'm not so convinced it is always necessary because not doing it at my own children's school is so unproblematic. They are a comparatively easy intake though. But in any case I don't think anyone is seriously complaining or questioning a few days at the beginning. It’s the school where it goes on for weeks where it becomes really hard for parents to manage.

A workplace is far more likely to allow/have provisions for one or two days sickness than 2/3 weeks of part time.

I taught reception for a couple of years, and the faffing around at the start of the year benefits very few.

Besides. As a teacher, teaching 30 kids is very different to running a home with 3 or however many kids in it, as your sole focus is doing the job.

@bluejumping The school doesn't know my child. They have seen her for 3 hours in June.

Her former nursery and childminder do know my child, particularly the childminder, as they have looked after her for years.

In fact even the people we have used as baby sitters have had more contact and knowledge of her, and a few of them have/had jobs dealing with children with additional/other needs.

Our school does one week phased start for reception, which I think is fine. DD started in 2020 on the back of the first lockdown and they did a two week phased start given the circumstances. I think any more is unnecessary for the vast majority of children!

No I don't think it is ridiculous. It is a big transition for 4 year olds and some kids don't go to a nursery and so are leaving parents for the first time.

If you have two full time working parents that is the decision the family is making and therefore at times you have to consider some childcare difficulties.

The child's wellbeing should always be at centre and it is better for children to have a slower transition.

OP, Just use whatever child-care you would use later on when she's poorly.
You have thought of that, haven’t you?

But being poorly is generally (with young kids, no health conditions) a few days at a time not 3 weeks, 6 weeks or half a term! (And often still tricky to cover if both parents are working)

I’m going through this now with my second and it’s a bloody nightmare. She’s so confused why she isn’t in school with her sister and is doing her no good at all pratting about with 2 hour sessions every other day. I’m really cross about it because I’ve taken last week off - time which I could have otherwise spent with my other child all together and am cobbling together annual leave, favours and wfh next week.

The thing that makes me cross is so many of these kids will be shoved in front of a screen of going to random friends for childcare that all this bollocks about a slow and consistent start just doesn’t apply unless they have a sahp. They’d be much better in school than being ignored on a screen while their parents are working.

@Dolores87 but why do you think it is better for children? It might be better for some and that option should be there if it is but it definitely isn’t better for mine.

I think it is worse for second and subsequent kids to have the staggered settling in as they will probably have to go in to drop off and pick up their siblings at the 'normal' time and not quite get why their school isn't the same as the school they've been travelling to and from most of their life...