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.

Indeed. My 3rd child was in nursery full school hours due to my working, in a school.

When he started school at 4, nearly 5 (October baby) he went back to doing morning sessions while his big siblings stayed all day. I had to take time off, from the school, in order to keep him at home as his nursery place had been filled.

Totally pointless all round.

Ours is similar and as both myself and DH teach it's a nightmare for sorting childcare!

I can see why some children need a slow transition but my DD has done 8-6 at nursery for years, if anything our long drawn out transition period is causing her more upset and distress!

My daughter started last tuesday with 4 half sessions, alternative morning and afternoons. Im lucky im on mat leave else i wouldve had to take the week off. I get that school shouldnt be seen as 'free childcare' but in reality it is lol. The afternoon session was less than 2 hours! Her first day she did the afternoon. Was the longest morning ever! She was up at 7am so excited and wanting to go. They have split the class in half and her nursery friends are in the other group. This hasnt phased her thankfully. Shes now really excited to go tomorrow as they all in and she gets to see them. Personally, i think it wouldve been better to have them all in but for mornings only to start with

It’s not best for children either. No evidence at all to support it.

Even more of a struggle for working single parents. I wasn't a single parent at the time but my dh worked away a lot and couldn't help out. I did negotiate for just one week of half days, as my ds had been 4 days a week in nursery for a year already, and we thought he'd be fine. I hadn't realised this was going to happen as they didn't do this at dd"s school, then we moved areas. Not sure when we were told, but I seem to remember there wasn't much notice and I was thinking, " Oh shit that's all my remaining annual leave!" I wrote a letter and had a reprieve.

Crikey, my daughter's school did 9.30 first day and normal after that.

I think schools need to take a more holistic view of "what's best for the child" - lots of 4 year olds end up passed around grandparents/babysitters/parked in front of the TV while parents WFH as a result of elongated settling in. I don't think that's best for the child.

And it is different to childcare more generally because as others have pointed out, your typical consistent options aren't available because there is much less demand for childcare at times when schools are open.

Our school does home visits at the start of term so the reception children start about two weeks later than everyone else. Then a third of the class in for a full day and then they all go in. It's been really lovely to have a few days 1:1 with him but it does mean that both my kids will have to do two more weeks in holiday clubs than they would otherwise because I've used up leave for this. We're fortunate that our kids like holiday clubs and we can afford it.

As most people have said, I think a week or two isn't unreasonable but the schools that drag it out for half a term are taking the piss

I’ve been on the right side (kid first in the door) and the wrong side (last in the door - 4 weeks later). I liked it the first time and almost lost my mind covering the childcare when forced to wait.

Next school had no such policy. Every child started at the same time and that was that.

I’ve no idea how this became acceptable.

Nope you are correct.

The kids who are used to fill time nursery end up getting confused and frustrated by only doing 2 hours a day. The ones who's parents can accommodate the rediculous staggered starts due to not working then think working parents are ridiculous for complaining because they have no idea how annoying it is.

Agree. And it does worry me that the extended settling could really tip some families into financial instability. That was why I felt so strongly about it at the time as it's a school in an affluent area that sometimes seems to make the assumption that everyone has nannies on tap, and it applies even more now with so many more households struggling though they have to be fair listened and reduced it significantly in recent years. Causing significant impacts on families ' ability to work during normal school hours is absolutely something schools should be considering in my view, and most do, I think. Making it sound like parents have no regard for their children's wellbeing if they struggle to provide a 1950s view of a perfect home set up is really unfair.

As for “the school isn’t childcare” view here. If you’re right, that implies that every child has a parent just outside the door waiting for them the whole time.

If schools aren’t childcare, why do they provide wraparound care? Because a huge number of families view school as such and need to work/care for others.

Rubbish.

The school have failed those children. I would be looking for a better setting for my kids it this was happening at my ds son.

Incompetent staff

Having 30 in full time from the start is an absolute shit show. I've been there. We've got 2 x 30 classes. Trying to get 60 tiny children through the dinner hall and showing them how to get their food, supporting them with trays, pouring water, taking them to the toilet etc until they learn where things are. Yes it's inconvenient for parents and staggering over 2 weeks is a bit ridiculous but absolutely necessary to do smaller groups for the safety and benefit of the children. We also have far less TA support than we use to too plus a huge increase in children that are not independent or confident.

I get the sense that the people who parrot the "school isn't childcare" thing are basically SAHMs who want to justify why it's necessary to be a SAHM of school age children.

All of my own children had different schedules for starting school, from “full time on day 1” to “part time until October” and the simple truth is that it made not one iota of difference to any of them. They all settled in and got on with it.
I don’t feel that staggering the intake was of any more advantage to them, than just getting on with it. It was less of a logistical issue for me, as I was a SAHM, and was doing the pre school/ school runs anyway.

Away back when, Summer babies started school after Christmas, which always seemed odd, as they missed out on a whole term of education. Obviously the needs of the children trump convenience for parents, but I would have assumed that if there were proven advantages/ disadvantages to a staggered start, all schools would be taking the same approach, rather than the mish-mash we have currently.

(Just to add that people taking the sarcastic comment on the first page, seriously, has really made my morning 😂😂)

OK, school isn't childcare, fine, but in this day and age, given that most parents do work, it IS incumbent upon them to at least not create a situation where it is impossible to ACCESS childcare. My child's school is "settling" P1 with staggered starts for the first week (no issue with that) and then doing 8.45 to 12 for the WHOLE of September. And they are, in the words of crèche, "the least ridiculous one".

The SCHOOL wraparound only starts at 2pm. There is ONE nursery that serves my child's school that can accommodate children from 12pm. They have four P1 kids who have been with them from six months old and no capacity for more. The other three within walking distance won't take from them any more because it's a shared site and access is an absolute circus.

My work crèche, like every other after-school that serves the school, can only take the kids from 2 pm because all the primary schools are doing wildly different "settling" for P1, and so they literally cannot plan staffing because the other four schools are doing different start and end every day. It is insane.

The schools agree holiday dates every year, in order to organise the bus services and school dinners, but they can't coordinate P1 in such a way that the after-school services can plan cover? I call bullshit.

It’s the same on here every year. Outrage and upset about schools taking the law into their own hands.

Except - as highlighted on here by many of us, since 2012, the admissions code has meant you are entitled to full days from day one of reception. Take what you’re entitled to! Educate yourselves!

It should be the other way round, ie full time available but if you have a child who is not used to nursery or full days then an option for half time available. My DiL had to take several days off last week to facilitate the “easing in”, which DGD didn’t need as she’s used to morning school and afternoon nursery

According to the EA NI, they only have to be in school for four hours in P1. Which would also be fine if they'd fucking all coordinate and do the same four hours.

You've answered your own question. If school was childcare, classes would run all year round. The very fact there is a different service called wraparound care demonstrates that it's a different thing.

It's like asking, if beef isn't a vegetable, why is it served beside carrots and peas?

It's easier said than done. My son's school starts the reception children two weeks later so that they can do home visits so the reception teachers and TAs aren't on site.

If I exercised my rights, they would have to sort something out for him but it would be confusing for my child as he would likely end up in the nursery when he now thinks he is a big boy starting school. I want him to have a positive experience not be the only reception age child on site for two weeks and singled out. So I have taken annual leave.

As for “the school isn’t childcare” view here. If you’re right, that implies that every child has a parent just outside the door waiting for them the whole time.

Primarily school is education
However what are the alternative choices for childcare during school hours in term time....?
It's basically friends or family and not everyone has someone that can do that (for several weeks at a time)

Your comment reminded me of a book we read, How Not To F* Them Up by James Oliver. It discusses SAHM vs not-SAHM and the relative benefits. One of the interesting conclusions was that everybody interpreted evidence to support their own view. The book didn't take a side, just found merits in each and it tended to benefit the child as it allowed their parents to do what allowed them to 'parent' most effectively. And that wars between the sides were generally unhelpful.

So maybe you're right. But that doesn't mean they're wrong.

Our primary school doesn't do this and the kids have no problems settling in.

That's interesting!

And I totally agree - I don't want to be a SAHM but I don't think SAHMs need to justify their existence either. I certainly don't think they need to support inflexible and unhelpful school timetables so that they can do a "gotcha" thing to working parents