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??

But its only 2 weeks and will they even be doing full days? And plenty of children are disadvantaged by their birth dates - I have an August boy and believe me he's been plenty disadvantaged compared to the older children in his year.

I was agreeing with Clam that the class will be used to new faces appearing every day - is that ok Athing? Its not as though the whole class will have been together for 2 weeks and then one lone child enters later?

At my dc's school though they all start fulltime from day one of reception which seems to work well. I'd have hated half a term of 2 hours/mornings etc.

When my children started (10 years ago) it was spread over one week. 2 mornings until 12, then 2 mornings with lunch (going home straight afterwards) and then whole days. That was fine for my two August-borns.

OP I work in year 1 and can assure you that starting 2 weeks late will make not a jot of difference to your dd in terms of her settling in, making new friends, etc. Children joining school weeks, months, even years later than the original intake tend to adapt and settle very quickly, so please don't worry youself about that. She will be made very welcome and have a full orientation from the staff.

She will not be missing out on anything and in fact probably won't even be aware, unless you tell her, that school has started.

It would not be a good idea to just 'turn up' all suited and booted and ready to join in because surprising the teacher like this (apart from being bad manners) will throw his/her plans for the day.

Reception is highly structured so that staff can work with specific groups of children to observe and assess them in specific activities. These are all planned in advance and resources prepared to suit the needs of the lesson.

Regarding the legalities, why not just ask the headteacher outright? It's a fairly simple question, they should be able to give you a straighforward answer.

I may be wrong, but legally they are not required to educate your children until they reach the age of 5, which is why ypu can take your child home early or send them part weeks in reception should you chose.

Our school had a flood in the foundation unit a couple of years ago just after the start of the autumn term, and they closed it for almost two weeks. They didn't provide any alternative classroom for the reception children. The main reason cited was lack of suitable accommodation. A group of parents took it up with the board of governors, a special meeting was held and they were basically told that only the children over the age of five would be accommodated should the parents require it. The parents of the four year olds were told sorry for the inconvenience and we'll keep you updated as to a date for re-opening.

I don't think the children were massively disadvantaged by this and are all happy in year 1 now.

As someone said up thread, two weeks is nothing in a lifetime of schooling, and the friends that she knows will be so excited when it Is her day to join them and will be keen to show her round that she will settle in just fine. And at this age it's all play based learning, they don't start reading or phonics that early in the year, so she won't be missing anything academically.

I haven't read the wole thread but just wanted to tell you that LEGALLY they have to offer your child 190 days education from the start of term, which means if you insist your child goes in full-time from the first day of term they have to accommodate you. I know this because I have just fought this battle with our school (son due to start September) and we successfully changed their policy. Their original plan was for two weeks staggered start, now DS starts full-time on the second day (summer borns starting on first day, I felt that I could be flexible after forcing them to chnage the whole thing).
I had many objections lined up for the lack of pedagogical sense of a staggered start, especially in a time when almost all of the children have been to pre-school, nevermind the logistical headache of arranging childcare for my older daughter for six weeks, to then have to arrange another two weeks for my son with no nursery place.
However, I didn't need any of that, I just quoted the law. I will dig out my emails and post them later if you want to use them.

To be honest, I just kept it calm, reminded them of the DFE guidance and it was a pretty easy "fight"...

yes the DFE gauidance is that they have to offer full time they can also offer part time but if a parent wants full time, even for their four yr old they have to provide it, this was changed in 2011 i think?

First email: I was wondering if you could roughly outline the starting arrangements for September. I have heard a rumour that there is to be a staggered start and am concerned about this for a number of reasons. Primarily, however, from an educational point of view I understand that the DfE does not encourage staggered starts and that the school has a statuatory requirement to provide education for A for 190 days in the academic year from September 6th. The following links seems to suggest that primary schools have to provide full-time places from the outset and I am very keen, therefore, for him to start full-time at the beginning of term. www.surreycc.gov.uk/learning/teachers-and-education-staff/schools-bulletin/schools-bulletin-july-2011/schools-bulletin-policy-and-guidelines-7-july-2011
www.devon.gov.uk/sc-july1126012.pdf

I would be grateful, therefore,if you could provide some clarification as to the statutory provision the school is compelled to provide from the very start of the the school year.

what did they reply clemett?

From the governors' website:
DfE guidance on staggered starts
We contacted the attendance and workforce teams at the Department for Education (DfE) to help answer this question. A spokesperson provided the following guidance on pupil attendance and teachers' working time.
Attendance and the school year
Schools and LAs can agree to set different term dates for different year groups
Regulations require schools to be open to teach compulsory school-age pupils for 380 sessions (190 days) a year, but schools and local authorities (LAs) can agree to set different term dates for different year groups. Where they do this, schools should use code ?Y? to record that a year group is not required to attend
If a school is offering some groups 191 days and the rest of the year groups 190 days, the DfE has no problem with this
If a school is offering some groups 190 days and the rest of the year groups 189 days, the school is not meeting the requirements of the regulations

Ivy, they changed their policy.

Wow. I knew there would be someone who had the information I need. Clemette has done my homework for me! But I would never have found these documents without your help, so thank you.

They seem pretty clear. The first states:

A choice of full time education for 4 year olds from September 2011- Further to the bulletin of 23 June 2010 and in the light of further legal advice, we can confirm that parents have to be offered a start date for their child from the first week of the academic year to enable the 38 week school provision to be offered. This would preclude schools from offering a staggered start, although a parent may request a deferred entry if they so wished.

The second article says that if schools insist on a staggered start, they have to confer with parents about the needs of each individual child. There wasn't any conferring with us, just a note on about page 10 of 20 pages of school info.

So I think I'll confer with the Head about my own child.

We bought her book bag this week and she carries it around at home all day - its all I can do to stop her from breaking into the school and finding her desk now.

But I will bear in mind, while conferring, that I will have to see the Head and the teachers at the school every day for the next 5 or 6 years (possibly more as DD2 is a baby). I will be vaire vaire naice.

Information is power. The more information you have, the less likely you have to accept "the computer says no".

I am going to think about how best to present this information in a non-confrontational way and will keep you posted.

"I have an August boy and believe me he's been plenty disadvantaged compared to the older children in his year."

As a matter of deliberate policy?

Or just because he's young in his year?

Because deliberately making settling in difficult for children based on the month of their birth would seem quite an odd way to treat a bunch of 4 year olds.

Because he's incredibly young for his year of course. And I really fail to see how starting 2 weeks into a term when new children are starting every day is that big a deal really.

But I am clearly biased on this subject as think as things go if you're one of the older children (of which I also have one) school is generally a lot easier.

Well school might well be easier for older children.

But to arrange things so as to disadvantage them seems quite unfair. They didn't choose to be born in the autumn.

They are just 4 year olds starting school.

And the advantages and disadvantages are not uniform - some autumn-born children will have other educational disadvantages.

To potentially compound that by forcing them to start later to make it fair on younger children that might have no problems at all seems a pretty blunt tool.

Do you think you might be getting ahead of yourself a bit? Why don't you just talk to them before you go in all guns blazing?

My DS went in on a staggered start. One of the oldest. One of the last in. Intakes went on for over a month. He is (was) socially very shy and awkward. He was not disadvantaged one tiny bit.

Someone else posted that it's good for the kids to go in in waves, as that way the teachers can keep a close eye on the newbies that week or day. Makes perfect sense - your DD will get MORE attention just when she needs it.

Everyone else won't be settled in. Everyone else is NOT starting on day one.

My school asked DS to start later. I said no. They said fine - so just try having a conversation with them first.

Given that you are a SAHM, you don't have to juggle work so really, what's the big deal??

You are right, it is easier for older children. I have two v. late July children, and I have certainly seen my son struggle socially and academically.

Would starting two weeks into the term affect DD's long term school career? No.
Would starting two weeks into the term give her a rocky start to school/social life? Yes, possibly.
Should I just allow a rocky start because she is already advantaged? Not if I can help it.

I will not be going in all guns blazing, but then I don't think informing yourself is an aggressive act!

FWIW DD1 started school 2 weeks after the rest of her class, and she knew no-one, she'd had no taster days, nothing because we moved to the village during the summer holiday and had to appeal for her place.

In the space of a fortnight, she experienced 3 massive life changing events, we moved house, she became a big sister and she started primary school.

She's also an October baby and she was absolutely fine.

Just deal with it, kids are pretty resilient creatures

But its only 2 weeks - that's what I don't get. If it were 6 weeks I could see the problem but for 2 weeks - I just wouldn't worry too much. Well unless its fee-paying - because then I'd ask for a partial refund of fees

And I think its pretty well agreed that on the whole that you've drawn the short straw to be an August born boy - yet another thing to criticise myself for

I would assume they take the younger ones first because they may be the ones who are intimidated by larger classes/may need a little extra help based on what the school has seen in the past.

But anyway I think the OP shoud question it but not blow it out of proportion because she really doesn't want to become 'that' parent before her child has even started at the school.

Kate - with 2 older children you know the social life of a reception child is largely driven by the parents - you can still do play dates can't you especially as she already knows many of the children.

I'd just remember its just 2 weeks - I am sure she'll be absolutely fine.

Being informed is fine, of course, but why not talk to them as part of gathering that information? You'd probably save yourself an awful lot of stress.

And really, it's just 2 weeks. My DS had to wait almost 4. He really didn't care. I, after spending all flaming summer with him and his newborn sister, was counting down the days...

The staggered start in Reception feels very frustrating for parents whose DC seem really ready for school, whether it be like the OP's school or the mornings only for a week, then till after lunch for a week and then the full day in week 3 that my DC's had. And it is particularly frustrating if you are a WOHM and have to cobble together some sort of childcare for those days/weeks.

However, it is done with the children's best intentions at heart. Maybe they are starting the youngest ones first so that they can settle in a smaller group, where as they feel like the older ones will cope better with their first day in a bigger class?

I think you've got away quite lightly to be honest. The school that my DD attends staggered the start date beyond belief. For a start they did it the other way round to your school, so they started the eldest children first, with the youngest coming in last, which to my way of thinking is completely arse about face. My DD (now in Y1) is April born and so was classed as a summer baby. Not only did she start school a full 2 weeks later than the older ones but she also did mornings only for the entire first term. She didn't go all day until January. I was quite concerned about this at the time and could only see that it would make her feel isolated and cause fractions within the class. Almost 2 years on and I can honestly say that I don't think it has caused any ill effects whatsoever.

Now my DS is due to start in September. He seems so much younger than DD when she started 2 years ago. I think he would really benefit from doing mornings only for a while, but unforutnately the school doesn't offer this anymore. Every child is different and it is very difficult for a school to cater for everyone. Please try not to see the schools policies as a personal slight. And try to remember that while it all seems so important for you and your child right now (rightfully so) that in a years time you will look back and wonder what you were worrying about!

Being nosey but where in Suffolk? My DS started primary school in a small rural school in Suffolk and we had none of this 'staggered start'. I would strongly suggest having a word with the head and saying that you would assume your DC started on X date and that is what is happening. I had never heard of all this 'staggered start' or half days only til I joined MN.

Oh, and one of my neighbours whose DS was starting also got one of the last start dates. She just said she couldn't because of work, and he went into the first week... no arguments, all very matter of fact.