Parents rights on staggered reception start dates??

[kate2mum]

Hi,

My DD starts school in September. She is early Oct child so the oldest in her age group to start at reception at her village cofe school.

Went to a meeting with reception teacher and DD and was given lots of paperwork, amongst it being her "personal" start date which is 14 September, the Friday of the second week of school. Seemed a bit sly the way they did this, wasn't mentioned verbally at any time, just noted once in the 20 odd pages of bumff. I queried this and was told the youngest children go first, 3 or 4 children a day until the last staggered intake, my daughters. She starts with two other children she does not know, who did not go to her nursery.

I can understand the benefit of this system for the younger children and the teachers. I can see no benefit whatsoever to my DD and the more I think about it, the more I see only disadvantages to her. They are: she knows she is the oldest, most of the other children will have settled in and been at school for almost two weeks before she starts so she will be like a new girl, despite knowing almost all of them (and knowing they are all younger than her). By starting on the second Friday (which will be a blur) she won't really start to be there properly until the Monday of the third week, still feeling very new, while everyone else is settled. After a month of school for most of the others she will have had two weeks, etc. I can see this starting her off on the wrong foot for the whole term. For my DD a "staggered start" is about keeping her out of the way for two weeks while they deal with the other children.

If I can go anything to change this I will. But obviously going about it in a calm reasonable way!

Read some of the other threads about staggered starts including:

"The posters who say that schools are legally required to offer full time places from day one to all children are correct however there s a grey area around 'setting it' sessions.
For example the school mentioned up thread that insisted on part time until the term the child was 5 are not allowed to do that as of 2011 they must allow all children to be full time from September if they choose although the parent still has the right to send part time. Schools are allowed though to have for example a 'setting in' period of part time hours for a few weeks, the problem is finding out where the line is drawn between the two. I would say any school that uses the age of the child to restrict hours at school for more then a couple of weeks is breaking the law in regards to the right for a full time school place for the September after the child's 4th birthday.
Most of the cases mentioned in this thread would fall under 'setting in' sessions and therefore be within the law. I don't know if there have been any test cases in regards to this grey area and I hope some of the experts in these areas will know more about this then I do and can clarify where the line is drawn."

Also just wondering if she turned up on the first day of school ready for work, would they be legally entitled to turn her away? It is one thing to have a tacit agreement between the school and parents that she won't turn up during the school term, but IF she did turn up, could they refuse to teach her??

Oh for goodness sake, haven't read the whole thread but leave it to the school, they know what they are doing! I imagine the staggered entry thing is to mainly benefit the teacher but so what! Your child will benefit in the long run because the teacher can get to know a small group of children before the next lot start.

A few weeks down the line, it does NOT MATTER at all that your child didn't start till later, either in terms of work or friendships ( friends change A LOT in reception).

Parents choosing the start date?? Madness! Suppose they all want the same day!

OP, take your legal hat off and consider what's practical for the school and class as a whole. I know you've got your child's best interests at heart but remember she (and you) are part of a school community now.

I get the idea that most objections to staggered starts/half days etc. have nothing to do with the children or the school, I think it is frequently because the parents feel inconvenienced at having to arrange childcare.

It is inconvenient for working parents and I've seen no evidence of a benefit to children. Sure it does make teacher's lives easier though. It wasn't an issue at my children's school but I would not have accepted a staggered start in any case.

But the school isn't there to provide childcare, it has to consider what's best for the school as a whole.

Wow the ignorance in this thread astounds me. I am speaking completely with my teacher hat on here, but seriously: give us a break. In my class so far I have 3 children on the child protection register, half of my class will speak another language aside from English, two will be in temporary housing, more than half on free luch, maybe 7 will need speech and language referrals, maybe 4 early intervention of some kind. Staggered intakes are important so we can spend time with your child as an individual. I want to talk with every child, I want to know where they are coming from, I want to have a few moments to plan for them & make sure I do my best for them. Give me a chance.

Maybe it is because I have had a difficult week with parents with people such as yourself OP, but honestly we are doing our bloody best, Give us a break. So your child goes in last. Big deal. It is a matter of days and they have the benefit of having being alive for a few more days to help them cope. The system is not perfect- but what would you suggest? Honestly? Instead of criticising the system WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST that is better?

There you go, the teacher has spoken (and very well too). Enough said.

I would also like the people complaining about staggered intakes to consider for a moment what they don't know. For example- your child's teacher cannot tell you that the children who have to start first might be on IEP's for behavioural difficulties or various types of special needs or considerations.

I have requested some of the kids I have sent on to school to start first because: They have ASD and find social interaction & large groups insanely difficult. The option to start when the room is relatively calm allows them to have the best start possible- hopefully avoiding disruption to your child later. Another child spoke three languages, had a very difficult home life, and was selectively mute. I wanted to give her a chance to make herself feel at home before the others started. To give that child the same opportunities to thrive as everyone else- because she could really do with a break in life.

Another child had witnessed his mother brutally beaten, he was now in temp housing, had none of his possessions around him. Change was constant. Starting when it was quiet, allowed his teacher a chance to reassure and give him confidence with the situation.

I could go on and on. What I am saying is that you cannot assume everyone comes to school with the same resources as your child. Without a little consideration not only will some of these children struggle to achieve, but they may also cause distraction for your child or use up more of the teachers time & energy. A little investment of time at the start goes a long way. A little understanding of your fellow human (and child's teacher) also helps more than you know.

Teaching is a fairly thankless job at the best of times. I love my job, but I would have to say the biggest challenge is - entitled, rude and arrogant parents. This thread touched a nerve with me because I just thought surely every parent would understand the need to try do what's best for every child. If you are opting to send your child to learn alongside others please try and role model some basic human decency.