DD starting reception - whats with this settling in melarky?

[itsnicetobenice]

When my other lovely started school 6 yrs ago we dropped her off and that was it - day one in she went the end. I just got details in post for my reception starter in September and we are having some horific settling in period thats goes on from 7th Sept until proper full day starting 26th september - i have to say i am not amused at all that we have gone from school nursery 12.30 - 3.30 to even shorter sessions from sept for 2 and a half weeks 1.10 - 3.30pm. How the hell am i supposed to go to work arghhhh!!!!!!!! Is this the norm now or are our school reception teachers just fancying an easy run in for themselves in september. I have used all my hols to cover the 6 weeks holidays between myself and my dh so i think i am ermmmmm screwed.

It might be different for other councils but our council now says it is up to the parents whether they want their child to go half day or full time for the entire first term. Some parents want half day for a younger, summer born child, others feel the older, autumn born child wants the stimulation of a full day.

It might be different for other councils but our council now says it is up to the parents whether they want their child to go half day or full time for the entire first term. Some parents want half day for a younger, summer born child, others feel the older, autumn born child wants the stimulation of a full day.

oh dear, I had no idea some schools do this. DD starts reception in September and I assumed she'd go full time from day one like her older brother and sister did (many years ago!) suppose I'd better check

When my DS1 started (now 16) it was one week of mornings, one week of afternoons and then full-time. Before my DD 14 started, school had had an Ofsted and were told they didn't give enough settling in time so had to extend it. What a pain in the neck that was! I made friends with other mothers and we helped each other out. By the time DS2 12 started it was back to, I think, four weeks! of settling in which is too much, imo.

It is one of those things that is going to vary so much depending on the child. I have a July baby, so am glad that even though he has been at nursery full time Monday to Wednesday, that I can send him part-time to school in September. I am lucky that things have panned out well timing wise and I will be on maternity leave though!

We have a very understanding and helpful school though who have said that although they are offering provision for full days from the start of September, we can all choose whether to send the children in the afternoon - we just have to advise them for each month which afternoons the children will attend.

It's very hard as obviously I understand the problems of fitting around work, but also have a child who I think may find the whole process of school exhausting. A no-win situation really although I can't think of a better way round it that the way our school has chosen.

When my DD1 started 2 years ago they had a 2 1/2 week settling in period. This Sept for DD2 it's just 4 days of part time. The school sent out questionnaires to parents over the last couple of years to gauge opinion.

The school have said that part-time could continue longer for children who need it, which seems like a good solution to me.

Our reception finish at 2.15 instead of 3.15 for the first 4 weeks - I found it a bit of a pain having to go twice in an hour - nightmare for parents who work to suit school hours.

It is a pain, but please don't think it's the teachers wanting an easy life. Reception children get so tired in those first weeks that I think it's a good idea. And it has changed because it's better for the children. Dd started in September and whilst I was mighty glad when she went full time, she would fall asleep in the afternoons despite having done similar hours at Pre school. And the autumn term is so long that if they're not tired during settling in they certainly will by half term.

Well my DS1 is an August baby and as such had 7 weeks of a mix of mornings and afternoons. He was extremely upset and unsettled BECAUSE of it as he did not understand what was going on. He would come to school to drop off his sister and then got taken back home for a few hours before being taken back. I was lucky that I was on mat leave still but it was hugely disruptive to the other 2 siblings who had to be carted to and from school basically 4 times a day.

All the parents found it upsetting, a lot of children who did go to childminder/nursery also found it upsetting, I did not hear one single parent say it was a good experience for them or their child.

In the other school my DD1 attended, they did a settling in of 2 weeks, with a build up of mornings, then morning plus lunch and then finally full days, I think that worked perfectly and never heard one person moan about it.

In our current school the head had zillions of complaints by lots of upset parents but point blank refuses to change it, and I think tbh that it is done for the benefit of the school rather than the children as all parents report the children are upset by it.

emy72 - I agree that would seem upsetting and bonkers. It would have been more logical for the school just to give him mornings only for settling in.

Mine needed the settling in tbh. They weren't fullt-ime till the week before half-term. It was a PITA but really she could've done with a term of half-days, and some weeks she was so shattered I kept her at home on the Thurs or Fri and that was a pain.

I am really lucky, I work part-time, I could take two weeks parental leave and I had her lovely childminder willing to do the early pick up.

this is our scenario too, we will go to school with dd and come home then he will sit about all morning and probably object when he then has to get in uniform to go afternoon for 2 hrs only!

Ours start full time from the 12th Sept. The local schools seem to have stopped the month or two of half days.

I had been dreading the half days as mum was going to have to come up every day, so pleased DS can start full time in Sept.

When my youngest som started Reception I had to drive his elder brother to school for 9, then go back at 10 to drop youngest off and pick him up at 12 then go back for eldest at 3. This went on for 2 weeks, then youngest went 10-1 ( so there for 9, back home, there for 10, back home, there for 1, back home, there for 3) Then from 10-2 for 2 weeks, then 9-1 ( yippee, both at the same time!) and finally 9-3 which had taken 10 weeks to get to. We changed school the following week His new school was back to 9-1 until Xmas! Nightmare!

School is NOT free child care! Reception is the start of a child's school career and a bit of investment of time and effort to make sure that it is a positive experience, not exhausting and daunting, seems worthwhile, since it is the start of 14 years in the education system.
That being said, the morning/afternoon system seems ridiculous. The school where I work used to do mornings only for a term. This year we have to offer whole days and therefore employ a teacher for the afternoon session for the first term; to supervise, according to neighbouring schools' experience, a group of tired, grumpy children, half of them in tears and sitting miserably in the book corner just waitingto get home. With budgets as they are, we have had to lose two TA's in other classes - not good for those children either.

Our school splits the children into 2 groups, they do mornings one week and afternoons the next then full days (or vice versa)

it makes for a gentle introduction and although time consuming for parents it seems to work well

The 'school is not free childcare' argument is irritating in this context. You can't really plan for this eventuality. The child is too old for nursery so can no longer go there. Childminders usually expect a long term arrangement. People often have no family nearby.

What do you suggest as an alternative? Go off sick for a month? Give up work for a month?

DD's school staggered the Nursery/Reception intake. It was the older ones they made wait the longest so nothing to do with settling in. I later found out that some parents had asked to send their children in the first intake because of work commitments. School was fine about it.

Or is the method of swopping mornings and afternoons a way of cutting staff costs? Not criticising schools if that is cutting costs is what they must do, but only to point out that it isn't great on children's body clocks and ability to settle into a routine if the routine keeps changing. I am guessing that there must be plenty of parents who have a more flexible schedule and wouldn't mind afternoons only for the entire settling in period till they become full time, while the rest do mornings only. I myself would be equally happy with afternoons only for the settling in period, for example. But I would find "morning one day, afternoon the next" completely irritating and inconsistent - even our hardpressed GP and dentist can give us more consistency with appointments! It just means that the lesson content will have to be the same for both groups of children, which I am sure teaching staff can easily accomplish.

While schools are not childcare facilities, neither should parents with more than one child be expected to be fulltime chauffeurs expected to pitch up to do 4 trips to school back and forth whenever dictated by changes in school schedules (and that's before you even count any off site afterschool activities like Brownies or sports). You also can't blame parents for feeling that the whole exercise is so expensive (in terms of extra bus fares or petrol costs - many families nowadays NOT being allocated their nearest school, work income lost, preparing different meals at different times for different children, etc) that you wonder who the settling in period (or unsettling in period, rather!) is supposed to benefit. (By all means flame me, just suggesting a simple solution to everyone's cost and scheduling conflicts.)

I never expected school to be free child care but i did expect and plan for full time from sept - i have contacted a childminder and whilst its a cheaper option this i find will be another new thing for my child to get used too so not an option. My work are getting back to me today as to whether they are going to be flexible with my hours but they think its unlikely as they dont want others asking if they do it for one they have to do for another - wtf!? I work for local government as well not such a great emplyer. I may request parental leave if anyone can advise if thats a given right as my work are being twattish to say the least.

You're lucky - round here they finish at 12 till after Christmas! It worked well for us - I was on adoption leave at the time anyway - but the schools round here completely operate on the assumption that there is a SAHM.

If the government wants people to work and not claim benefits, these are exactly the types of situations where one might think on balance it's best not to work. If, for example, you're a single parent with no family support working in a low paid job, how exactly do you cobble together childcare for these odd days?

OP, I see what you're saying about getting used to the childminder. On the other hand, it might be worth him gaining a relationship with her now, because with all the school hols, training days etc. you might need to call on her again.

You can take parental leave while your child is under 5yo. You can take 13 weeks in total up to their 5th birthday. The leave has to be planned/agreed in advance.
One of the reasons for taking parental leave is to help settle a child into new childcare arrangements - which seems to cover settling in at school IMO.
Look here for more information.

You are legally entitled to full-time education from the start. Of course, if the school aren't doing this, you're stuck practically because you are not going to get them to bend for one or two kids, and they will be citing child welfare as their motivation.

But it is common. We are very lucky: DS1 starts in September, and the school has been incredible-we have weekly story sessions between now and the end of term and two full afternoons. He frigging loves it-has even bought a school mug to drink out of. Come September ALL pupils attend full days, but the school allows parents to withdraw children after 12.15 if they give notice to cope with tiredness (so their attendance isn't screwed). Seems sensible and child centred.

On the other hand, other school choices operated a forced settling in like this period and an age-tiered settling in period (all from September, but youngest go less to start with). The school I work at operates the system you are coping with, but for fewer weeks. It's a mish-mash really, left to individual schools.

You are lucky - the settling in period you describe is very modest with respect to those of our local schools (with the exception of our school which also only does 2 weeks).

I think the settling in period is there for

a) genuinely thoughtul reasons with respect to the childen
b) to appease middleclass anxious parents
c) so that the teachers really get to know each small child
d) because Ofsted like it!

However, there is a bit of me that things if all these children need to be so carefully settled in, are they not starting school too early.

When dd1 started at school, her settling in period was longer than dds settling in period at her new nursery.

Yes i agree about them perhaps being to young so why not go back to the 2/3 term entry raaaargh. Alas anyway work were unhelpful in case other people asked for flexible working which they have recently done away with but between myself, dh and the private nursery at 27.90 a morning for them to take my child to school for one week we can cover it. It is doeable but will leave us both with absolutely no hols till the next leave year so best hope none of the dc get ill!