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??

"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 is people who find it easy to accept that life is not fair that are always out to get the best deal.

If you don't believe in fairness, why wouldn't you do everything to secure your own advantage?

Life may not be fair, but schools can and should be fair.

Keeping some children out of school against their wishes, their parents' wishes and their best interests is IMO unfair.

You can argue that it is fair to disadvantage some children to attempt to remove statistical advantages they may have.

But the argument that fairness is not a reasonable expectation for a child to have of their school is deeply worrying coming from someone who is presenting themselves as working in education.

"But bear in mind that if they move her date forward they will have to move someone else's back."

Oh, and no they won't.

This whole staggered intake bullshit is not something the school has to do. They can choose to do any number of things to accommodate the OP and her daughter.

Pretending there is an element of compulsion and somebody has to be disadvantaged is dishonest.

It is my experience that the children who are most unhappy in themselves, those with low self-esteem, those who fall apart if a piece of work is not perfect or they don't win a competition or don't get the part they wanted in the drama play, are those with the NOMCH parents.

They have not had those experiences which enable them to cope well in these situations because their parents engineer it so that they don't have to. These are kind, loving parents who think they are doing the very best for their child.

But in the long run, all they do is teach the child that if things don't go their way that's a bad thing. These children sometimes come under immense pressure from their parents (completely unintentionally) to get the best part, first place, etc. They pick it up and think it's important and then when things go wrong they fall apart.

Education is all about making mistakes. We would never learn anything if we didn't make mistakes. But these children can't handle it. They would rather not try than not be best. It can actually be quite damaging.

So, all I am saying is put things into perspective. Let the child have slightly difficult circumstances to navigate and help them through it. It will be best for them in them in the long run and they will actually be happier for it!

That has nothing whatsoever to do with teaching a child that life isn't fair, or that fairness doesn't matter.

Bringing up a resilient child that deals well with adverse circumstances does not necessitate creating adverse circumstances for them to deal with.

You seem to be constantly shifting the focus of your argument in favour of convoluted starting schedules.

It's only serving to convince me that your attachment to them us emotional rather than rational.

Ooops, I seem to have hit a nerve, sorry about that.

I have absolutely no objection to OP speaking with the teacher to change the start date, as I said above. I was just pointing out that this parenting style does not always benefit the child in the way that the parent intends it to. Something to bear in mind, that's all.

When ds1 started school they had 2 weeks of no school, just home visits from their teacher and ta. Then 2 weeks of either mornings or afternoons so you were in with half your class. Finally they moved on to staggered starts - but spread over 3 days rather than 2 weeks (summer term born kids in first, joined next day by spring term born, finally autumn term born). So not ideal (most kids that had been to nursery found it very disconcerting going down to half days and then having a long weekend if spring/autumn term born, then back to full days). But at least the staggered bit was over 3 days not 2 weeks - maybe something to suggest to them if they want a staggered start. Ds2 starts the same school in September; no staggered starts this time but still the 2 weeks of half days unfortunately.

And for what it's worth, ds1 Missed the first couple of weeks of y1 due to chickenpox. Not quite the same as starting school for the first time but the classes had all been jumbled up, he had a new unsympathetic teacher (who despite all the scabs over ds's face treated him and me as if I'd kept him off for an extended unauthorised holiday when he'd actually been very poorly but had gone back despite being below par having been ill for so long) and he missed the couple of weeks transition from easy reception to knuckle down y1 attitude needed. And I really think he suffered as a result of it - despite me being told in yR that he was being considered for g&t maths, he was put into the middle set (he was put back into the top set this year - y2- and is now on the top table in the set, he really struggled with his reading and writing (this year is progressing significantly faster), socially he was disadvantaged by being tired and having horrible looking scabs, his teacher always seemed to see the worst in him and overall I reckon he didn't really feel comfortable in his class until the middle of the summer term :(

He has done much better this year but it does make me wonder how badly his start to school would have been if he'd had chickenpox a year earlier and missed the start of school!

So no, yanbu, it doesn't sound like the school has a particularly good starting policy!

Just caught up as I've been at work, but am agog at parents demanding the school accommodate their child in day 1 regardless of the school's (probably tried and tested) system.

Op instead of blaming the school for disadvantaging your DD by forcing her to start 9 days later than a handful of other children, why not look at your own brand of disadvantaging?

Starting in reception 2 weeks layer than some children pales into insignificance when you think of the disadvantage (which she may well resent one day) of not getting the same private education as her brother?

I think that "Ah, but we fought to get you to start on the first day of term rather than day 9" will fail to make up for it really.

Agog at parents "demanding" that the schools change their policies to reflect the change in law and guidance that occurred last year??

PS it was tried and tested policy in the 1970s for my maths teacher to teach with his feet up on the desk, reading the paper and chucking chalk at anyone who spoke. Times move on, schools need to reflect the huge changes in pre-school provision. It is not about putting one child first, it is about acknowledging that there is no evidence that staggered starts are better, they are legally no longer allowed, so why shouldn't a parent challenge the status quo? Or do we all have to accept that things are done this way because "they always have been?"

I have no idea what your passive-aggressive abbreviation stands for, and nor do I care.

You haven't hit a nerve. You just kind of creep me out.

I hope to fuck none of my kids meets a teacher like you in primary school, dying to create dusadvantages for them to teach them that life isn't fair.

It sounds vaguely abusive.

:o clemette

My Dad's tried and tested teaching method in the 1970s was to strut around the class smoking and quoting from Shakespeare.

He found it quite hard to do those lessons when the law took his props away :o

But, you know, he adapted.

The fucking cheek of the parents who discommoded him by suggesting maybe it wasn't best for their kids...

haven't read the whole thread (having washing to do ) but my DD's school did this - staggered the entry over 2 weeks, 3 children per day I think, starting with the younger kids. My daughter was somewhere in the middle. She knew one other kid in the class who started on day 2. I really don't think it was an issue. In fact I think it's a good thing. Each new kid gets more attention from the teacher/TA on their first day, and DD said that each day a new person started they were introduced to the rest of the class & the teacher asked who would look after them/play with them on that day.

and it IS only 2 weeks!

1 girl in Dd's class didn't start at all until January & she has settled in really well, teachers made sure the other kids included her

"Each new kid gets more attention from the teacher/TA on their first day"

On a diminishing scale from those who start first (nobody else in the class) to those who start last (full classroom, might as well have started on day 1 with everyone).

If children need a few days at school with so much teacher attention, then surely all of them should get it?

So everyone misses 9 days of school and just goes in for their special "starting" day with a couple of other children.

Of course kids starting on day 1 have more 1 to 1 than kids starting on day 9, but they are younger (almost a year younger) and are therefore likely to need more time to settle in (although of course some of it is to do with personality). If all 30 kids started on day 1, it stands to reason that it is harder for the teacher to keep a close eye on each child.

I really don't think 'missing 9 days of school' at the start of reception is going to impact their education. The first (half?) term is all a settling in period anyway surely? And I don't think it will impact friendships either. DD did mornings only til Christmas (she was one of 6), and it didn't stop her from forming friendships, which I was a bit worried about.

Life may not be fair, but schools can and should be fair.

Fairness is not when everyone gets treated the same; fairness is when equal effort has been made to meet their needs. OP has not said anything to convince me that her child's needs are poorly met by the proposed arrangements.

With a summer birthday DS2 went half days for nearly all of first term & I was delighted; he was so much less tired than autumn-born siblings had been. He was in top ability groups in reception yr -- even though he didn't stay there by yr3, he's not a brain box. I think half days gave him much more energy for school work, and the fact that it was half days meant the teaching was more focused, too. Not that OP is fretting about half days, anyway!

I would never begrudge a younger, more delicate or less likely to settle easily child, some extra days of one on one with the teacher. But then Im not a pushy parent!

We don't have pushy parents on MN, do we?

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?

For work?! She's four! She's be playing, painting, making friends and having fun! Yep, pushy parent!

"Fairness is not when everyone gets treated the same; fairness is when equal effort has been made to meet their needs."

No effort has been made to meet the "needs" of the OP's daughter.

But apparently that's fine because she has an October birthday so statistically she might need less support.

I don't think it's acceptable to discriminate against a child based entirely on their age.

And as I don't have any autumn-born children my interest in this is not of a pushy parent, but of someone who thinks some schools are taking the piss with this extended settling-in nonsense.

It's just starting school. If it's taking full term to do it, it's taking too long.

2 weeks isn't a full term!

But apparently that's fine because she has an October birthday so statistically she might need less support. I don't think it's acceptable to discriminate against a child based entirely on their age.

If there is any reason to think that an older child needs more support then the parent can discuss it with the school.

Otherwise its just making a fuss about nothing. If you want your child to grow up to have an over active sense of entitlement thinking that THEY always come first and their wants are more important then anyone else then carry on!

Can totally see where the OP is coming from and agree with all of 'AThingInYourLife' s posts.
Making decisions purely on birth date are clearly unfair if there is no detailed consultation regarding the specific needs of the child - and this is where the OP's school have failed her.
If I had been in this situation , I would have been very worried that with a September -born child , the school would have been taking no notice of the fact that my dd was due to be born in December.
So this policy ( as with many others) takes no account of premature birth, a disadvantage in itself.

Someone upthread mentioned the chikd's right to 38 weeks of teaching and that missing two weeks denies the chikd this right. From my (admittedly) limited research, I understand that this is only once the child has reached compulsory school age, which is still legally 5 years old. Yes schools have to offer a place from the September after the child's 4th birthday, however there is no legal obligation on the part of the parent to take it up, nor for them to send their child full time if they do, until the child is 5 years old.

And the research relating to staggered starts, refers to groups starting at the new terms in January and at Easter afaiu, not a maximum 2 weeks settling in period.

And if anyone thinks any child will be disadvantaged missing 2 weeks of play, then they are quite clearly bonkers and being more than a little bit precious. Give them a few weeks and they won't even remember that X started before them, or Y started after.

Have literally just found out that DS will start with two weeks of 2hrs in the morning. Fine except poor kids gonna be dead confused. We've talked about going to school and changing friends and it's going to take a bit of getting used to but for a child who does full days at nursery 5 days a week (and has done since he was a baby) to start going 2 hrs a day is going to confuse the hell out of him as no matter what I say he'll think that's what school will be like.
And don't get me started on the childcare implications.... Yes I know school is not childcare BUT I do have to plan childcare around it. Getting childcare round here is a nightmare anyway so he'll be going to After-school club but obviously can't do that for those 1st two weeks. So far haven't found a magic childminder who can do this and I can't just take holiday. My holiday was taken up looking after DS following an operation. 2wks continuous unpaid leave is probably going to cripple the small business that I work for that is currently seriously struggling in the godawful recession and since redundancies has less than half the people are there trying to do the same amount of work. DH can't take that much leave as his hospital is seriously understaffed and taking further time out would mean bumping people off the surgery waiting list.
Illness I can cope with as DS goes to GP's who work from home but they can't drop everything and drive for 2hrs to pick up after 2hrs school each day that's an ask too far (they are saintly already).
I'm already losing sleep over all this stress and life will go on but it one more thing I don't need and can see little or no benefit for my son.
It's also daft as there are only two kids (one of which is my DS) who are coming from outside the schools own nursery, which actually shares a room with reception so I'm not sure what the 'settling in' actually means.

Sorry for the rant - I know it's only two weeks and it could be worse but seriously it feels like the straw that broke the camels back.