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??

If they had made even a cursory attempt to find out which children would benefit and which would not, I might buy that Fairenuff, but if it's done strictly on birth order then there is no way of knowing which children will benefit and which will be disadvantaged and therefore it is unfair.

You get the impression from some of these convoluted arrangements that they are devised by people who need to be banned from using spreadsheet software and coloured markers.

It is all the ridiculous idea of "levelling the playing field".

so, Autumn babies have the advantage.
that's not fair
Let's give them a disadvantage then
then it's fair

now everyone is a bit disadvantaged, ie we are creating equality

...

staggered approach like this is bonkers and unnecessary

69 will be in within the first three days here.

If children need to start school in groups of 2 and 3, surely the fairest way to do it is to bring them in in those small groups on separate days?

So children get different starting dates, but just because you start earlier doesn't mean you get to be there when other children are having their first day.

Each child gets to start with only a couple of others, get to know the teacher and TA and then come back when everyone joins together.

That way you don't have children missing 9 days (18 sessions) of school that other children are getting.

Being a reasonable person, with a sense of perspective (I'm begging you to believe me), and despite being a touch precious (older mother syndrome) and without a collective mindset and (worse) a SAHM who shouldn't really care because its not a childcare issue, I think I'll go with Clemette anyway.

Also I think I'll teach my DD to be an independent thinker as I'm not a big "collective good" sort of person. Sort of makes me shiver, actually. Although, you know, good luck with the revolution.

Having consideration for other people is a separate subject and shouldn't be confused with the collective good. I think that can lead to bad decisions. But that is history, again, another subject.

Ah, you see I am a big fan of the "collective good". But the arrangement we have come to with the school is good for the whole collective (parents don't HAVE to send them full-time but can if they choose to.)

If they had made even a cursory attempt to find out which children would benefit and which would not, I might buy that Fairenuff, but if it's done strictly on birth order then there is no way of knowing which children will benefit and which will be disadvantaged and therefore it is unfair

They make much more than a cursory attempt. Our reception teacher visits every child in their nursery setting and at home and has them for 'stay and play' sessions thoughout this term.

They also receive all paperwork from nurseries and pre-schools detailing the child's progress to date. It would be unlikely to be 'strictly' on birth date, although older children do tend to be more able to cope in the early days.

Of course there will also be children with SEN whose needs will have to be accomodated and even if they are the oldest they would be more likely to start in the earlier, smaller groups. There is a lot to consider, it's not just a lottery.

So, with all that effort this term Faire, why aren't they ready for them to start together in September?

"Our reception teacher visits every child in their nursery setting and at home and has them for 'stay and play' sessions thoughout this term."

And yet STILL they need to have starting school turned into a massively complicated production.

TBH it sounds like you guys are totally overthinking the whole thing.

It's just a class starting school, this level of agonising over how to start them all sounds more like a weird fetish of some obsessives than anything remotely to do with what is best for children.

Having gone throught this last year, I don't think it's a big deal. My son's start date was 21st September, and he was half days til Christmas. I was pretty shocked!

Yes, it was annoying. Yes, I wanted my son to start earlier. Yes, I wrote to the school to get it changed.

The upshot?

Same start date. He settled in totally fine. He was not socially disadvantaged at all. He doesn't even remember he was the last to start.

I wouldn't fret too much about it. She'll be fine, and it sounds like she knows other kids there. I think I felt more disadvantaged than him, as was worried I would be missing out on meeting the other mums.

Because we start everyone on the same day - and because for a significant proportion of our intake it IS the first time they have ever been in any kind of education or childcare - we do a LOT of transition work over this half term.

It does involve the local pre-school - so benefits the children there too - but the main aim is to draw in those 'never been away from their own tiny community with known adults' children and given them some idea of what school is like.

Home visits are this half term too, whereas I know some schools do those in September.

Fairenuff, just want to say that we got the delayed start date 10 days ago, already decided. She meet my dd for ten minutes 3 days ago. I know for a fact that her nursery has not given the school a copy of her learning journey, etc, yet, as they haven't finished filling them in. They don't do home visits and the stay and play sessions are in two weeks.

So not much consideration there then.

I would be pretty furious if my child was forced onto half days of school for an entire term.

How can that be justified?

Another thought, OP, what a fabulous opportunity to take your dd for a holiday abroad for the first 7 days of term. Flight and hotel prices plummet as soon as the schools go back and September is a lovely time to visit europe. The mediterranean is still warm and the crowds will have disappeared.

If I were you, I think I'd take advantage because once she starts school you will be so restricted on when you can go away and have to pay so much more for it.

It ant be justified and it isn't legal.

Can't

Oh x post there.

Sounds like my school operates quite differently to yours then, which is a shame.

Sounds absolutely bonkers to me!
You take nearly a nearly 5 year old, who is so bursting to go to school she is carrying her book bag everywhere in June and who if she could have chosen herself, would probably have started school already and make her wait until 2 weeks after her friends.
This arrangement can only be for the teacher's benefit. Once your daughter is there the class will be entirely full. I would also be inclined to question why?

So, with all that effort this term Faire, why aren't they ready for them to start together in September

As I said in an earlier post, the staff will observe and assess children in small groups, on specific activities. This will be different to 'stay and play' but they will do their best to make the children comfortable and happy. The younger ones will be more intimidated by a whole class setting at first.

Also, stay and play is optional and not all parents take up the offer so the setting will be completely new to some children. These will most likely be in one of the earlier groups.

Are these younger ones after ones wo have been in pre-school settings with less structure and more bonkerness? There are 37 children in my son's nursery and he is there from 8-5 every day. School will be calmer!

Typing horrendous today. For "after one wo" read "often ones who"

The bottom line is school have to make provision for all the children they have coming. They have a clear legal obligation which many of them are not sharing with parents. It is up to parents (those who know their child best) how and when their children will feel most comfortable, in consultation with the teacher if necessary.

Your daughter is going to school for the next 13 years. What's 2 weeks?

It is difficult pill for all us mothers to accept but moving on to school means you will no longer have the final say on everything that your daughter does and everything that happens to her. She is now part of a group of 30 and sometimes her interests will come first and sometimes they won't. You'll get used to it. Your daughter will be fine with it.

That's all well and good allagory, but people should question things which do not make sense. We are not sheep, to just have to do as we're told.

Many evils in history have occurred just because people do not question why, but mindlessly do as they are told. And in education this is just as true- I was taught ITA- independent teaching alphabet. A fairly bizarre alternative, phonetic language. In my case it just delayed me learning to read by three years, but many people never learned to spell because of this. My parents never questioned anything.

And while i am not advocating to go in aggressively being a difficult parent, we can and should question things. No-one who has a good enough reason for doing something should be threatened by someone asking "why?"

It is up to parents (those who know their child best) how and when their children will feel most comfortable, in consultation with the teacher if necessary

This is a very sensible statement. OP do you really believe that your older, confident child will be disadvantaged by starting school 9 days later that some of her peers (only 1 or 2 days later than others)? Do you really believe this will affect her education or social life? If so, then by all means go and have a chat with the teacher.

But bear in mind that if they move her date forward they will have to move someone else's back. It might not make a difference to them either, for all you know.

I think it's wonderful to teach our children 'independent thinking' but also so important to them, as well as society as a whole, to teach them to think of others. It's a simple statement but means so much. The child that understands from a young age that, no, life isn't fair but that's ok grows up much more resilient and happy than those who are always trying to 'get the best deal'.

It's extremely difficult for teaching staff to accommodation everyone's wishes all the time and some parents really give their children a bad reputation. (I call it NOMCH syndrome - not my child!)

Do you really want to be a NOMCH parent OP?