Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Choosing reception children to start full time after half-term - anyone else's school do this?

40 replies

enid · 20/10/2004 16:20

All dd1's reception year (all 11 of them) have been going mornings only until half-term. 4 of them have been chosen to do full days after half term. Dd1 isn't one of them, which is fine but...it seems a strange situation. Unfortunately her friend is going full days and has told dd1 it's because she is 'more clever' - - but also for dd1. Anyone else's primary have this policy?

OP posts:
pixiefish · 20/10/2004 16:29

never heard of it enid. some schools start the kids on full days in sept and january depending on birthday but that's all i've seen. hugs for dd

acer · 20/10/2004 16:29

How strange, have they given you an explanation? My ds2 went straight in full time, not too sure if this was right for him though.

tamum · 20/10/2004 16:31

Don't mean to be insulting, enid, but you have checked their ages have you? It's not possible that that's all there is to it, is there? Your poor dd .

cupcakes · 20/10/2004 16:31

Did the parents personally request it? Maybe they thought their children were ready for it so was no point in waiting. As far as I know all part timers (my ds included) at our school go full time in Jan.

KateandtheGirls · 20/10/2004 16:32

The fact that the children have the impression that it's an ability-based thing, whether it is or not, makes me very uncomfortable. Can you ask her teacher?

Anteater · 20/10/2004 16:32

No, never heard of this, although they be holding the more confident children back a little to give the quiter ones a head start, but with only 11 in the class..?

acer · 20/10/2004 16:33

Yes, maybe it's done by birthdays. Try not to worry

Original poster
enid · 20/10/2004 16:35

no, its not done by age - dd1 is 5 in Dec and her friend is not five till end Jan.

They say its the ones who can 'cope' with it. Deffo ability based - prob more 'coping' skills than intellect but still I think very devisive - especially for only 4 kids!!

OP posts:
Original poster
enid · 20/10/2004 16:35

They will all be going full time in Jan, so its only five weeks but still...

OP posts:
KateandtheGirls · 20/10/2004 16:36

I agree Enid. I wouldn't be at all happy with that, and I know if it was my daughter who'd been left out she would be heartbroken.

tamum · 20/10/2004 16:36

What a ludicrous thing to do for the sake of 5 weeks! Very mean.

acer · 20/10/2004 16:38

Doesn't sound right and if it's upsetting your dd1 and you think she can cope and is happy (you know her best) then tell the teacher that you wold like her to start full time too.

Original poster
enid · 20/10/2004 16:39

Now I see its not the norm its making me more and more cross!! There's the governors AGM tonight and unfortunatley cant go otherwise I think I might have made a stand! Trouble is, the mums who have been 'chosen' obviously think its fine, and a great policy as their child has 'passed' whatever criteria they go by.

OP posts:
puddle · 20/10/2004 16:39

Did they not tell you this was their policy when your dd started Enid? I don't think it's on to change the goalposts like this half way through the term. I'd get some more information on the criteria and how it is being communicated - it's certainly bad if it's perceived to be based on celverness. How to make reception children feel like failures six weeks in

puddle · 20/10/2004 16:41

Where we are it's based on age - the child goes full time the term their birthday is in.. So DS starts after Xmas - his birthday is March. And they are very strict about it - they have had parents trying to argue special cases for their children to go full time early but they won't do it.

Original poster
enid · 20/10/2004 16:42

The teachers decision is final! They make that quite clear. Its not really upsetting her, she seems remarkably unphased by it and we have laughed about what her friend says. I suppose if they don't think she's ready, she's not ready, but even so, you'd think they'd wait until Jan anyway, wouldnt you?

dd1 loves school though so I don't want to rock the boat by being difficult about it...

Still fuming though

OP posts:
Original poster
enid · 20/10/2004 16:43

puddle, they did tell us before term started but I got the wrong end of the stick and thought it was based on age. - doh!

OP posts:
acer · 20/10/2004 16:44

Will she be going mornings again, I would make a big thing about the fact that she can finish earlier and maybe get together with some of the other mums and kids that are going part time.

Caligula · 20/10/2004 16:46

My DS's school has this policy, and tbh I quite like it. They're treating children as individuals and noticing that some are more ready for full time school than others. The aim was to get everyone ft by 4 weeks, but there are usually one or 2 who can't cope until the half term.

But afaik, it was never ever presented to the kids or anyone else, as an ability issue. It was just Matthew prefers to go home atm. Obviously, if a child felt left out, then they'd be allowed to stay - the idea is to make sure that v. young children aren't forced to go ft before they're ready. I think that's a good thing. It sounds like your school hasn't communicated v. well about it though.

cupcakes · 20/10/2004 16:48

At our school the parents seem to be more concerned about keeping them part time. I can see the merits of starting those who are ready but it seems to be done in a very silly way - and causing more damage to your dd than if they were starting her as well, iyswim.

MamaMaiasaura · 20/10/2004 16:52

ds is starting full time 5 November, I understood it was about birthday dates rather than intelligence.. Reception aren't tested are they? Hope not cos they are only little people

Original poster
enid · 20/10/2004 16:52

but cassandra, even if dd feels left out, she cant go full time.not allowed.

cupcakes, I agree, on paper I'd rather she went half days anyway as I think it might be easier on her (they are still tiny after all) but I hate the 'streaming' idea of it...

Can't wait till next year where some of reception go straight to year 2 and some stay behind (recep and yr 1 are mixed) expect a few posts from me then

OP posts:
codswallop · 20/10/2004 17:26

I highly approve of half days
I di d agovernr visit the other day and they are so small
all sucking hter thumbs and unable to sit still.

dont know if its right for baby enid though.

lou33 · 20/10/2004 17:32

They do the phasing in at ds's school. He is year one now, but when he was in reception he started part time for a while. A few weeks until 12, then a few more until after lunch, before he was started full time. They only do one intake a year at this school, in september, so they started the children full time by age. Ds1 was one of the older reception starters, turning 5 in the November after he started, which was why they started him full time first. Some of the youngest children didn't go full time until the following april, if the head thought it might be too tiring for them. Ds2 will start next september in reception, but isn't 5 until the following february, so he will be a part timer for longer.

I wouldn't take any notice of what the other child has said, unless you have been told this by a teacher at the school (haven't read the whole thread). It's possible her parents said it to her to try and cheer her up, for example, and she has repeated it to your dd.

lou33 · 20/10/2004 17:34

Even if the other girl is younger than yours, it wouldn't be based on their inteligence. Ability to cope also means whether she would get too tired, start missing you etc. I think it's a great idea to phase them in gently. Makes it more hassle for us though, traipsing up and down the school so many times in a day, but better for my boys.

Swipe left for the next trending thread