Can the school kick us/DS out for wanting to go to school?

[ABitTipsy]

DS has just started in reception. He is born and the school have a policy, decided by the governors, that summer born children can only attend part time til January.

This means my DS misses out on the important issue of making friends and getting used to the normal school day and routine including having his lunch there etc. simply because he was born at a certain time of year. He will have to come home and have his lunch at home and get bored whilst the rest of his class mates carry on getting to know each other, forming friendships, getting to know the staff and he will have to do all this in January, a full term after the others.

I am going to see the head teacher next week to ask about the school's reasons for this policy in case there is some benefit to my child in missing out on half a day at school ever day for a term that I do not know about. If not I will tell her that I will send in my DS with a packed lunch and he will stay for the full day like all the other full time children.

I can't see what the school can do about a pupil who wants to attend school but isn't allowed to.

Has anyone been through this situation? How did you handle it?

TIA

fluffy, DS was at nursery, with 30 children, most of whom are now in his class at school, and he did full days there 3 times a week, so he is absolutely used to lots of children and longish days. (He did normal school hours at nursery). Am not quite sure who you mean I am trying to get rid of? The school governor? Yes, he is a bit of old so and so, but I am not trying to somehow get rid of him by flouting his policy, I just want DS to spend all day at school like his 2 best friends who will both be full time whilst DS, who is only weeks younger than them will be part time for a whole term.

This is a major bugbear of mine - I ended up starting my older DD a term late because she's winter born and under our system (Suffolk) would have had to do half days until January. There were no nurseries that would pick up at noon and take a contract for a bare 3 months so I just told the school she'd join in January - they accepted this though it wasn't LEA policy. My younger DD is also winter born but by that time there was childcare in place so she started in September and did half days - and she hated it. For 3 months I had a child who was past ready for school and KNEW she was missing out. What was worse was that the school asked the LEA if they could judge cases on individual merit and allow children who were ready to go full time, but the LEA said no.
Different things will suit different children, which is why there needs to be flexibility, with the schools in collaboration with the parents deciding what is best, not some faceless bureaucrat at the council.

It isn't a funding issue. The financial year (as with all the public sector) runs from April to the following March. The school's budget for that year is determined by the number on the roll in January. So the number of children in January 2011 will determine the school budget for the year starting in April 2011. And I should have said earlier that the cannot take the place away from your child once he has started school unless the place was obtained fraudulently.

pointy, yes I agree that the school/teacher and parents should decide whether a child goes full time/part time. But the parent knows his/her child best especially as they are brand new to the school in Reception so it makes it even more crazy that the school governors decide on this issue.

prh, hi and yes, you're right, I checked with the LEA and a school cannot withdraw a place unless it was obtained fraudulently.

I just find it a bit surreal that my DS is sooo keen to go to school, he wants to learn, he asks a million questions a day and yet the school do not want him there every afternoon when the purpose of going to school is to learn.

And saying that he is not missing much because all they do in the afternoons is play does not wash with me. His teacher told me that although the kids think they are playing, they are actually learning at the same time as they operate a play based learning policy in Reception. Also, if all they do is play in the afternoons, then why can't the younger ones stay on? I am 110% sure my DS would cope more than adequately with 'playing' with his best friends at school for the afternoon.

Also having meals together is a great bonding process and he will miss out on this, and as the term goes on he will have to try and break into friendships between the full timers that have become closer and more established whilst he is absent all afternoon. I want him to have the chance to get to know and make friends with the whole class, not just the other summer born children.

I do sympathise a bit. My dd is in an area where she'll start in January. So she is still at nursery, all her friends are a few months older or in areas where they don't do staggered starts so all her friends at her nursery, and outside, has started already. She is SO jealous and desperate to start school. And a bit lost at nursery. The afternoon nursery is also PITA for me and yes, I'd love to have her at school all day (much as I love her)!

But, you know what? it's just ONE term. It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It'll be January soon.

Am just trying to do some fun things and enjoy this sneaky extra time with her!

The thing is it should be left up to the parent to decide imo.

It's all well and good saying "summer born boys"...but I have an august born boy who has a sister 1 year older and is desperate to be like her/join her at big school.

He has been in nursery, he has been at pre-school and he doesn't honestly need weeks of part-time. It will be a bit of a shock to the system going all day every day, but a few weeks here and there in his case are not going to change that.

Now if I had the choice of starting him a year later - that would be different - but just doing part-time for a few weeks, well I am sorry it makes no difference in his case.

Not easy to do anything at home when you have other siblings on different timetables and work thrown in the mix. Most kids have siblings and/or parents who work, so like in my case he is just dragged around doing school runs/pick ups and drop offs. Poor kid.

Adair, thanks for your post, and sorry for your little DD! It's very hard when you can't really give a proper explanation as to why they are not doing the same things as their friends.

Yes, I know it's only one term. But it's the principle that is really annoying me. There is simply NO rationale or logic behind the decision to force summer born children to go home at lunchtime. If there was evidence to prove that all summer born children were better of going home at lunchtime then I would happily bring DS home.

And the inconsistency really annoys me too. If they think summmer borns need extra help then why don't they continue this policy throughout KS1 at least? ie summer borns should be taught seperately/differently to the older ones. But they don't. Apparently summer borns suddenly catch up in all areas with the older children as soon as they start full time in January.

What they are actually doing is putting the summer borns at a further disadvantage because they are having to settle in all over again in January to a whole new routine, getting used to lunchtimes, longer days etc whilst all the older children are already used to this and settled in. And as well as having to get used to a new routine the summer borns have to try and do some learning in the afternoons as (I think) it's only during the first term that afternoons are for mainly playing.

So the policy is flawed on every level and I am not the sort of person to just moan but do nothing. I think something should be done about this ridiculous policy and I am more than willing to be the person who instigates a change. I think ultimately it should be up to the parents to decide. And if it is only for one term, why are the school so against it anyway? Surely they can cope with 30 kids in Reception for 3 terms? If they can't, then, well, they can't really call themselves a school.

They do revise things and look at evidence etc.

My mum (early years teacher for MANY years) says it has changed lots over the years. She says she saw one where they took the younger ones in in September and taught them intensively, with the older ones falling in in January. Makes more sense to me.

I think I like the option of putting my child in full-time later though. Ds is July and I don't know if he will be as ready as dd... So I sorta accept the inconvenience of her situation as hoping that it will still be an option later. I do agree though, why can't children be able to start if parents wish them to? After all, she has got the place! I don't know. I am not sure I care enough about it though to kick up a fuss (will save that for homework and the National Curriculum tests if still on the cards ).

emy72, exactly, poor kid. I feel sorry for my DS. He too will be dragged around whilst I pick up my older child and it leaves very little time in the afternoon to really do anywhere or do very much that we haven't already been doing all year.

DS's 2 best friends are full time. So whilst he is not around, they will probably be playing together and bonding and this will be to DS's disadvantage. I think friends are so important at school. I don't think a child can fulfil his potential and learn if he is unhappy due to friendship problems. I am just amazed that his school does not seem to have considered any of this and have just imposed a blanket policy on all summer borns. It's just not right.

And this is not the first ridiculous decision the school governors have made, but it is the first time I have felt strongly enough to do something about it.

Adair, taking the younger ones in FIRST, makes so much more sense. Are there any articles you could link to about this?

It is about having the option, rather than having the decision imposed on your child by somebody who has never even met him.

Oh, and plenty of parents kick up a fuss about homework, SATs etc, nothing wrong with that. I will do anything to ensure my children get a decent education, I really don't care what the school thinks of me as a person/parent and I would hope they realise that every complaining parent only does so because they care about their children. I would feel as if I had failed in my duty as a parent if I didn't at least attempt to get the best out of the school for my children, even if it meant ruffling a few feathers here and there.

Then I think you should raise it with the governors. But not as 'a ridiculous decision' - it is fairly common practice! But why not raise it as 'is it working?' Explain the disadvantages as you have stated here. You are not requesting they change their whole policy, merely that if parents wish children to stay full-time earlier that they can.

Am all for parent power!

(btw, I think your ds will be absolutely fine with bonding again in a term - as will my dd. A whole bunch of new kids will come in and shake up the class!)

Oops, x-post!

Sorry, no just going on what my mum said . As I said, I don't care enough to kick up a fuss about that issue but YOU should if it is important to you. I am planning to be a fairly annoying parent (have strong opinions re pointlessness of homework and SATs and will be actively suggesting certain things) but a nice one (am also a teacher, so hopefully sympathetic too). Pick your battles!!

Abit, my ds is May-born and has gone in full time from day one. This was requested by the school because there are only four summer kids in his class and they didn't want them to feel odd for leaving, and we've decided to go with this for now as his best mate stays for the afternoons. So far he's been fine and we do have options such as finishing early on Fridays or dropping back to half days if he gets lots of ear infections (his thing, sadly).

I also believe that come next year all children will have to go full time from September regardless of birthday, or defer to start in Yr 1, unless the Coalition have changed this.

Adair, yes, I will be the epitome of tact and politeness when I speak to the head/governors about this policy. I am just curious as to how it was decided. Did they look at any evidence/research/historical experiences? If they did and they made the decision based on acceptable rationale, then I will accept it even if I disagree. But if they just had a chat over coffee one morning and thought it would be a good idea, then, no, that's not good enough.

My suspicion is that they thought it would 'help' the summer borns to go part time but simply did not think it through properly and consider all possible angles/pros and cons and as school governors, surely they should be doing this on every decision they take?

ABitTipsy just wanted to let you know what happened in our school last year when DS2 started reception and it was the borough's first year of just having a September intake (previously the younger half of the year didn't start reception until January).

Initially the plan was that the younger half of the year would stay until the start of lunchtime until half term, and then do the usual 3 weeks of building up to full time that the school has (I know that's longer than alot of schools but it works here). However, after the first 3 weeks the teachers, and parents, noted that most of the younger children had settled extremely well. They understood that some of the children were miffed at being told they couldn't stay for the rest of the day, and that working parents had issues with childcare, and were willing to change the policy to allow all the children to go full time at the same time.

In the end, only 2 children didn't take advantage of the full days on offer and continued part time until half term. They were pretty much the youngest (so only just 4), and actually both had working parents who weren't just looking for childcare but could see their kids weren't coping yet. By the end of the first term everyone seemed to have settled well.

So really I would just encourage you to speak to the head because you have very sensible reasons for wanting something different from the school's current norm and most schools know that any blanket policy on this kind of thing doesn't generally suit everyone.

Sorry have just seen your last post - our reception teacher said they took months to decide what to do about this policy when they were told to change to 1 intake, and the trouble was that they found conflicting evidence as to what was best.

DDs school has this policy too, anyone born after 31st Dec goes home at lunchtime, BUT they can choose to stay for lunch, which most do. I pick her up at the end of their lunch break which is spent in the large playground with the whole school. Would this be a good compromise for you, it'd probably help with the social side of things and your school may be more inclined to agree to it.

TBH in DDs case, it suits her, she's exhausted coming home (despite longer days previously in nursery) and her behaviour in the afternoon has been interesting she's also gone back to napping.So its definately suited us. I'd have been annoyed if she hadn't been able to start unil January though, as all the other schools around us do.

I'm not sure spiritmum's assertion about children having to start school "full time from September regardless of birthday, or defer to start in Yr 1" is correct.

As far as I am aware, statutory school age will continued to be defined as the start of the term after a child's 5th birthday. Therefore my DD2 (31st May birthday) will not have to be in education until Y1/equivalent. I may choose to accept a school place offered for the September after she's 4 but not send her until the January/Easter/some other mutually agreed point in the school year.

LA's are being encouraged/directed to offer Reception places to a single intake in September but unless the definition of statutory school age changes they can change only when a school place is offered/made available, not when an individual parent chooses to send an individual child.

DaisySteiner... That is only wonderful if you are a SAHM

I am the first to say that summer children struggle at school but I think they should be OFFERED to start later... say January.

And when they start.... they start FULL TIME.

Because the reality of the world is that a lot of children have already been to day nurseries for TEN hours, some children go five days a week.

Half days are an ABSOLUTE NIGHTMARE for the working parent. I remember thinking that I was 'lucky' that DS and I had been in a car accident and I was still off with my injuries! Plus his school only did half days for 2 weeks tho they have since gone back to a full HALF TERM of messing about.

If I had been working I would have been absolutely, completely and utterly in the shit. I HAVE to work, I have no childcare other than what I pay for and so the reality is that school is my childcare!

A lot of parents in my position solve it with either a childminder OR some nurseries local to schools have cottoned on and offer childcare round the ridiculous toing and froing that some schools insist on! Or they have an army of different people collecting.... all of which serve to undermine what the school are hoping to achieve.

Get them settled into a routine... if there are some children who are struggling, arent used to it then parents have the OPTION to do half days and importantly summer babies go in January

My DS2 was barely ready for FT school when he started in the September that year, despite his 5th Birthday being in november. He had to 'suck it up' and go FT straight away.

DS1 on the other hand, was more than ready to go FT in the September, even though he was summer born. He had to go part time until Christmas. It should have been Easter that he went ft, but by an odd quirk that school year, they had too many summer born, so they took the two oldest summer born early, which included DS1.

I can honestly tell you, that if your summer born dc is ready for ft school, the term spent pt will not affect them, and they will soon catch up, and even overtake the autumn born dc in their class if they are that ready for school. And by the end of Y2, there is really no difference in abilities. In fact DS1 overtook the autumn born dc by the Easter term of reception. It's a nightmare doing the extra pick-ups etc, but by the end of Y1, you will notice no difference in your dc's friendships or level of learning to if they had been ft in September, honestly!

Just to be clear, from September 2011 all schools must accept children who are over 4 at the start of the September term although the child doesn't have to start education until the term following their 5th birthday. If the child is 4 the parent has the right to defer entry to January or Easter. The parent also has the right to request that the child is part time until they are 5. The current wording in the Admissions Code doesn't say the school has to comply with such requests but I think that is probably the intention. Again, the Admissions Code itself doesn't say this but the implication is that parents have the right to put their child into full time education in the September following their 4th birthday rather than the school dictating whether such children are full time or part time.

The situation for summer-born children will be unchanged in that they can defer entry for a full year but they will then be going into Y1 and will have a limited choice of schools as most will already be full.

No Dayshiftdoris, it works for working parents too, because they do whatever you want them to! I work full time, ds3 went in full time when he started 2 weeks ago, no problem. If I'd wanted him to start in January that would have been fine too - total flexibility.

SE13, you may be right. As I understand it there are going to be two options offered for summer-born children - full-time in Reception from September, or full-time from the start of year 1.

It may be that the law hasn't changed and that you still have the option of a January or Easter intake - technically. But if the Govt. say this is what they want to see then this is what Ofsted will want, and IME most schools jump through every hoop that Ofsted tell them to. You could find yourself with a real battle on your hands.

So your best option is to look for a school that doesn't bother with Ofsted (i.e. one that is 'satisfactory') or move because preumably those parts of the UK not covered by Ofsted will be doing something different.

Such as the play-based curriculum for the whole of KS1 that Wales are introducing.

spiritmum, I have already found the school I'd like for DD2 - it's the same as DD1 attends and I am a teacher at. It is neither failing or satisfactory but it does have a sensible headteacher at the helm so I'm not that worried about postponing DD2's start date if I believe it is in her best interests to do so.

That's not a perk for school staff only, I know a couple of now Y1 children who joined Reception at Easter/later. I can't think of many teachers I know who are desperate to fill their classrooms with overtired just 4-year-olds!

Spiritmum and SE13Mummy, the situation is as I have already set out and is clearly laid down in the Admissions Code. This is a statutory document, which means it has the force of law. I don't know where Spiritmum gets the idea that the government want to stop January and Easter intakes. I haven't seen any such announcement and that is the precise opposite of recent changes. It used to be the case that you had the right to ask if you could defer entry but the school did not have to grant your request. You can now insist on deferred entry.

The position is as follows:

From September 2011 all primary schools must admit any child in the September following the child's 4th birthday. Most do this already.

Parents have the right to request that their child is part time until they reach compulsory school age. The Admissions Code doesn't say schools have to comply with such requests although I presume that is the intention. This rule came into effect in February 2010.

Parents may choose to defer entry until later in the school year but may not defer entry beyond the term following the child's 5th birthday. Schools must comply with such requests. This rule came into effect in February 2010.

Parents of summer-born children may defer entry for a full year but the child will then be going into Y1. Since Reception is the normal year of entry most schools will already be full up in this scenario so parents taking this option will have a limited choice - in general they will only be able to get their children into unpopular schools. This rule has been in place for as long as I can remember!