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??

"However, it is done with the children's best intentions at heart. "

Really?

What evidence is there that it is better to stagger them like this based entirely on their ages?

I suspect this is something a little voguish that schools have bought into because it makes things easier for them.

You can see the benefits to the other children.

There you go. Your child is one child out of the 29 or however many. The school has the interests of all the children in mind, not your particular child.

IMO, if you can see that the system is structured to offer the greatest benefit to the children in the whole class, you should support it, even if it doesn't benefit your own child directly.

Well, the cynic in me would agree with you!
If they wanted to do it as best as possible, they would need to really know each child before-hand though - some children are naturally more confident, others (despite full-time nursery experience) can be anxious and withdrawn in new situations. Of course they could do a brief meeting with the parent and child before to ascertain this, but that would take time.
It is pretty difficult to settle new children when you have 2 or 3 clingy/whingy ones needing a lot of close support as well as the other 10 leaping about....

"IMO, if you can see that the system is structured to offer the greatest benefit to the children in the whole class, you should support it, even if it doesn't benefit your own child directly."

Maybe.

But if the child is harmed by the policy, then surely it is right to oppose it?

I think schools have a duty not to institute policies that actively disadvantage certain pupils.

Harmed? That is over-egging the issue a bit, surely?

Lots of children benefit from getting to know the routine and the enormous new building, and new adults within a smaller group of peers. It takes a while for the little ones to get used to school and all the new rules etc. Much better that they have a chance to get lots of one to one time with their new teacher or TA to begin with to help them feel secure. Schools can never please everyone although god knows we try our very best in our school!!!!! I like parents who question stuff too, at least I know where I am with them from day one.

If a later start is disadvantageous, then it is harmful to the child who is made to start late.

You can have small amounts of harm.

And parents can object to them.

Oh come on, how on earth can it be classed as harmful? We're talking a matter of weeks here.

What a nutty system staggered starts are!

My dc is starting full time from the very first day. We got a form to fill in. Every single reception child does 3 full days and 2 half days as a minimum, with the expectation everyone will be completely full time by half term. I ticked all the boxes on the form as I will be sending dc full time right from the start.

If it creates a social disadvantage for the children starting late, then that would be harmful to them.

You might think that the harm is negligible, or justifiable, but it would be harm nonetheless.

If the policy is effective, then it seems likely that some children are being disadvantaged.

If it is ineffective (which I suspect is the case) then there is no relative harm, although I would contend in that situation that ALL the children are losing out on schooling they are entitled to so the school can fanny about with staggering entirely to suit themselves.

kate2mum This post: 'But whatever advantages DD has because of her dob, I fail to see why she should have the shortest straw for reception entry. And be separated by entry date to the children she is friends with.' really struck a chord with me.

I'm also feeling really hacked off with the whole staggered/soft start thing to. But our situation is ever so slightly different in that my DD is an August born & her school start younger ones last. I know my DD and she will not be best pleased about having to leave school at lunchtime while all her friends are staying. Out of a reception class of 30, 19 are coming from DDs preschool, and the greater percentage of these have Birthday's before Christmas (therefore starting earlier in the term & being FT sooner). I can think of at least 4 girls that DD is very good friends with who will be FT 3 weeks before DD. My DD doesn't start until 19th September (doing afternoons) then on the 1st October she switches to mornings then on the 15th she starts all day (which she does for a week and then it's half term!!). I know my daughter, 2 hours of school a day is not going to challenge her or make her tired. Am anticipating her behaviour at home to be horrendous during this starting phase, she is noticeable difficult during school holidays/days when she isn't at preschool. IMO they can say it's for the good of the children all they like, I'm not buying it. I'm unsure as to why the decision to be part time cannot be left to the parents. If the child is struggling surely this could then be brought up & the issue addressed if necessary. This may well come across as me being a bit 'pushy parent' but I actually think that my DD is probably going to cope alot better than some of the older starters. If it was up to me I would start DD doing half days, but I wouldn't string it out for a whole bloody month!

Only read the op as Im supposed to be ironing!

You sound really precious! This is a normal start at primary school and you are over thinking how this is going to affect your child. Chill! She'll be fine. It makes sense for the teachers to focus on those who might find harder to settle first.

Is this your oldest child? You can't always have everything your own way. What order the kids start school in isn't going to affect anything in the long run and very little in the short run.

bebejones i think given the new guidlines you can question it and say you dont want your dd to do that, my ds4 is meant to only do half days when he starts, i have said no as he alreayd does full days at pre-school, he will have a FIT if i have to bring him home at lunchtime, esp as he already has 2 elder brothers at the school, and the logistics of me doing 3 school runs a day for 7 wks (they wanted half days till the oct half term!) would be a nightmare as its an hour round trip at least and the times were 9-11:30 or 12:30-3, would barely be home before turning round and going back again!

5madthings, feel free to quote the evidence I found when we challenged ours.

It WOULD disadvantage my son to go to a unknown childminder for two weeks between the end of nursery and the start of school which is why I insisted the law was upheld. If he had been my first we could manage that with time off work, but as we are already juggling six weeks off with DD it was not possible.

PS Bebe in the changed system at our school the youngest start earliest as it was felt they would benefit from being there before the real hustle and bustle started...

OP I had this issue 2 years ago. I wrote a few letters to the governors about it but got nowhere. I have a legal background too and looked at the Age Discrimination Act as I felt my son was being discriminated against purely on the basis of his age. If I had really wanted to i think i could have brought a case against the school under the Act but i decided against it in the end. My son was forced to go part time for a whole term purely because of his spring birthday and i felt it was very unfair on him missing out on making friends and also the afternoon lessons.

Tulips, how frustrating for you because the law and the DFE guidance changed last year.

Something to bear in mind here.

Your school, like the majority of state primary schools, have found that staggered start dates work best for the benefit of the whole class. It would be harder for all children to cope if everyone was in full time on day one, that's why they do it.

So, someone has to be last in. In your case, OP, they have decided, based on your dds age, pre-school reports and home visit, that she will be better able to cope coming into the larger group than some of the younger/shyer/more nervous children.

One of the things that is taught in reception, in the subject PSHEE, is to think of others needs and be considerate of others. It's a big focus, in reception, and continues thoughout school, that the world does not revolve around 'me', I am not the only consideration, I will not always have things the way I want, when I want them and this is OK. In fact, it is extremely good for building self-esteem.

You are, of course, only thinking of your child because, as her parent, it is your responsibility to ensure that she is safe and that her needs are met.

But the bottom line is that she absolutely will not be disadvantaged socially, educationally or otherwise, by starting school 9 days later than the rest of the class.

Staggered starts have no merit for children, that is why the DFE says schools should not use them. No parent HAS to send their child full-time if they are worried that they won't cope, but schools HAVE to offer the full-time provision.

"But the bottom line is that she absolutely will not be disadvantaged socially, educationally or otherwise, by starting school 9 days later than the rest of the class."

For that to be the case there must be absolutely no advantage socially, educationally or otherwise by started school 9 days earlier than the rest of the class.

So there is no point in staggering.

Talking to a primary school teacher friend about this her view is that primary schools do this because they always have. It harks back to (mythical) days where starting in the infants was the first time a child had been away from their mother. Today with preschool education having such a high take up this is no longer the case for the vast majority.

My children's school tried to have a bitty start for the kids, with random mornings and afternoons on some sort of bizarre timetable, but I announced that because there was no childcare remotely available for such an arrangement, my kids would be coming full time from day one and the school would have to plan accordingly. Interestingly lots of other working parents felt the same, as well as some parents with young siblings to look after, and in the end I think the school abandoned this and just invited parents to send their kids in when they felt it was best. This panned out quite well, with children who still had an afternoon nap leaving at lunchtime, and those who had dropped their nap doing full days. Seemed pretty logical to me.

For that to be the case there must be absolutely no advantage socially, educationally or otherwise by started school 9 days earlier than the rest of the class

No, not for her. As an older, confidant child, who is excited and looking forward to starting school, there would be no advantage to start earlier.

But to a nervous child, or a child just turned 4 there is an advantage to going into school on the first day with a small group and a chance to bond with the teacher without being overwhelmed by 29 other loud and boisterous children.

Fairenuff, surely that is why the schools offer settling in sessions this term?

It depends on what the settling in consists of and what the teacher deems the individual child's needs are. To have the whole class in by the first two weeks is quite quick in any case.

I disagree.

As when a child has a staggered start, that child has more of the teachers attention for first few days, so the teacher easily gets to know her, her strengths and weaknesses and ability etc.

Otherwise if there are children who are more needy, bewildered, unsettled etc who have more demands on the teachers time, she will spend more time with them and take longer in getting to know the less needy children.

In my dd2s nursery they have staggered starts from sept to nov, jan to march and april to may.

It doesnt effect friendship groups, children are very welcoming and transiednt in friendship groups, even my dd1 in reception has different friends and doesnt tend to stick to just one or two.

I dont believe 2 weeks will be a disadvantage socially or educationally. friendship groups wont be fixed by 2 weeks. And it is likely there will be 3 children starting every day for first 10 days? so it is not like 27 kids started 2 weeks earlier?