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??

Great news kate2.

Fab news Kate2!

I spoke to the chair of the preschool PTA yesterday & she said that the DfE ruling has no impact as it is OFSTED who 'insist' upon this sort of thing. No idea if that is fact or not, but thought it was interesting.

Oh & I have my 'parent teacher interview' on Tuesday while DD has a stay and play session. Me, on my own, without DH (I'm way too chicken to argue my case) as they gave us 5 days notice for a middle of the afternoon appointment!

Have also found out that the children will be brought in in 4's (oldest to youngest, with the oldest starting full days first) until they are all in. So my DD will be in the last group of 4. This has all been decided before they have seen her learning journey or pre-school transition report! So wrong IMO, but parents have been trying to get the school to change their approach for years apparently and nothing has happened!! Anyway, will get off my soapbox now & 'get on with it'!

I'm a teacher and I've never heard of staggered intakes like this! Only September and then January.

I wouldn't want my child to be last to start. Two weeks is quite a long time to a young child. I'd ask the school if you can start earlier. May make them rethink their arrangements.

Hi Kate, just saw that you've managed to change the day. Well done! Hope it all goes well.

Just adding that, after her chat with the LEA, the Head said she was obliged to offer me two options; the first day of term, or the staggered date two weeks into the term they had already arranged. Obviously, you can't just go choosing a day, and nor did I want to.

The big weakness for schools, I think, which is easy to bring up without sounding legalistic/aggressive, is that each individual parent was not consulted on their child's start date. If schools want to stagger intact, they have to do this. My particular Head commented that, "we can't ask every parent when they want their children to start!". But they do, if the child is not starting on the first day of term. That should be enough to get you an offer of a start on 5 September.

Bebe, if the rules changed in 2011, some schools and others involved wouldn't really be up date. My Head was certain she didn't have to offer me anything other than the start date she decided, but after a consultation with the LEA she discovered she did.

And another thing!

In the first phone conversation I listened to a 15 minute speech about:

The school had made this serious decision bearing in mind the needs of the class as a whole
Taking the younger children first was more beneficial to them and the school had thought hard about this
The school had planned this carefully
Etc

I was v. firm (politely) that, whilst acknowledging School's hard work on behalf of the children as whole, I was absolutely sure that this method of intake was not beneficial to my particular DD. And I would be grateful if the school would reconsider. My advantage being that I know my DD and they know nothing about her as yet.

Then in the second conversation when they offered the alternative date of 5 Sept, Head admitted:

There are actually 8, and including DD 9 children starting on the first day of term as it is not just the youngest, but having gone through the class roll and run out of days (!), the oldest in the class at the bottom of the roll had been rotated back up to the first day of term. So, the carefully worked out policy of youngest in first looks a little more higglety pigglety doesn't it?

This is the type of thing, generally, that irritates me about State organisations by the way. If you try to change anything they try to undermine your confidence by preaching "policy considerations" and how hard everyone is working on "behalf" of you, joe public. Then, it turns out they are just making it up as they go along like everyone else, but hide behind their "carefully worked out" plans.

I'm not in the least surprised, and I won't think about it much now, but I am now very glad I did not leave my DD's school start to them.

Not that I think State organisations are manevolent or anything; it is just that the nature of the State juganaut means that it is not terribly concerned when it runs over lowly individuals.

Well done kate. I agree with your comments about the school seemingly making things up as they go along. Ours certainly seems to....

It's bizarre, this insistence that it's unreasonable for parents to decide when children start. A good school would ask you to tick a box to express a preference, and work around practicalities. It's not rocket science. Year 6 could organise it if the Reception teacher finds it too taxing.

I suspect the head has decided that the best way of dealing with you is to give you what you want in the hope that you just shut up and leave her alone and that you are the type of parent that really gets right on her tits. And to be honest, if you are so disparaging of "state organisations" why are you even sending your DD to one? I strongly suspect that you are being this bolshy with respect to your DD's start date as a way of overcompensating for her lack of private education that is deemed worthy of her brother...

...to wit, you never did respond to my question regarding your own particular brand of disadvantagement/19th century approach to educating your children!

Would you like to analyse my reasons for doing the same lackadaisy? I am a governor, active in the PTA, on good terms with the head and the teachers and STILL I insisted that the law was met and the staggered start was changed. It was changed not to "shut" me (and about ten other parents) up; it was done because the LEA told them it needed changing.

I think it is called "legitimate protest" and it is a fine British tradition.

It's quite simple Daisy; there are all sorts of "policy makers" out there, unelected, making up rules over a M&S sandwich trays and sparkling water, about all sorts of aspects of our lives.

The thing is, I have my very own bunch of policies for everything. I don't mind state organisations when their policies gel with mine. And I like to look a bit closer when they don't. I think I'm entitled to do that.

Also I don't think the Head hates me that much: I joked to her that, having got the start date I wanted, would I have to pay a penalty, if not now but some time in Y2 when I wasn't expecting it.. she laughed (yes, sense of humour!) and said they didn't operate that way.

Also, I think I explained that there is no need to worry about my daughter's future education as her brother is going to a public school and I fully expect her to marry one of his posh friends. Honestly, why would I need to pay for her education then?

And if I paid for her education, she might go and get a law degree like me, but end up at home with three children, again like me, spending her time getting on peoples tits like, er, me.

God knows, we only need one in the family.

as i said earlier we had the same issue, yesterday i got a letter from the school, instead of the staggered part time start that was to last up until the october half term! we can now have a 2wk staggered start or start full time on the 6th sept, i have ticked the box for full time straight away. this is simply because parents complained and pointed out that it isnt practical, the lea doesnt recomend it and its not shown to be beneficial.

its not a case of being an awkward parent, its a case of wanting what out children are entitled to which is a full time place at school from the start of term and less disruption to everyday life.

Maybe I just don't have that much fight in me, or accept things too easily. I really hadn't seen it as being that much of an issue, although after this thread I may have something to say when DC3 starts school next September, being Autumn born and probably destined to start at the end of the month!

lol kate, I hope she finds a good un....don't accept anything less than a title and an estate in hampshire

"For my DD a "staggered start" is about keeping her out of the way for two weeks while they deal with the other children. "

No - it is about enabling each child to have some extra personal attention fom the teacher or the TA. If all chilcren start on the same day, they cannot get that.

You seem to be a great expert on how all the other children should feel and react to starting school, and how schools with years of experience, should go about the business of making sure that each child gets a good induction.

Oh, and have a good look around - you may notice that the harvest season does by and large co-incide with the summer hols so many farming families (farmers does not equal landowners) find it hard to go on holiday than.

I agree that it is always good to look at options and try and negotiate if what you find doesn't suit - but really, support your dds school and leave your sense of entitlement at the school gate when you go and pick her up each day?

Haha at you not wanting the state juggernaut to run down your dd but you are quite happy for your personal little juggernaut to run down the other children who should be getting help with their peg and PE shoes by insisting that your own dd up the numbers!

Haha at the 'marry a public school boy' - go on, admit it - you are a Suffolk combine driver incensed at the DFLs, aren't you? .

I would like to give a BIG to kate2mum for starting this thread and clemetteattlee for her contribution. As it made me aware of the rule changes that I didn't know existed.

On Friday, the Head of DS's school confirmed that yes he (Reception in Sept) can start school full-time instead of half-days until half-term. So there is no longer the need, the expensive and the stress of finding a stranger (albeit if a childcare professional) to cover 11:50 - 15:30 x most days a week x 8 weeks between school and the after school club.

We didn't get as far as mentioning the law, as we sent a begging before I saw this thread, but I had contacted the LA (still waiting for a response, it has been referred to the legal team), as did another parent I know with regards to another local school. I do wonder if behind the scenes they were reviewing the situation. The Head of DS's school said they'd be reviewing their policy.

I was so relieved that I started crying on the phone!

I truly LOVE the power of MN.

That's great Watersign.

I know what you mean about the power of MN. Twice this week I have looked up various issues online (trying to avoid MN browsing..) and have been led back to... MN

Thank goodness this is being raised. My 3rd child is just about to start reception and yet again with 13 weeks of holidays to cover the additional staggered start is a nightmare to cover when working full time. He doesn't start full time until the 24th September, my others went back on the 6th. I've been trying to find any research based evidence to support the school's stance on staggering the children in as I've never managed to find any parents supportive of it. I've recently become a parent governor at the school and therefore want to put this on the agenda as something to go out for parent consultation. When I've enquired about the school's reasons I've been fobbed off with the 'we find this is best for the children'. Personally I don't think this is true or good enough unless based on research (which I'm yet to find). As far as I can see the only benefits of staggering children's entry to school is to the teachers. In the 6 years we've attended the school, parents have never been consulted about this and I think it really warrants parent feedback. Does anyone have any research that they can point me to? Much appreciated - I'd like to go into this armed with the right information if possible rather than just personal opinion.

Well done Kate.

I can see the benefits in staggering the start into a couple of groups over the course of a few days.

However, schools seem to be going to increasingly elaborate and lengthy measures at the start of school. On what basis? None it would seem as every school seems to have a different idea of what is 'best' and it varies massively.

Really glad you got what you feel is best for your dd. Especially as it has now emerged that the school had messed up the approach to settling in anyway and had bodged it at the last minute... Food for thought, for those on this thread who feel that parents should sit back, know their place and let the 'professionals' decide.

I'm pissed off about this ATM. I start a new job on Monday. I explained to my new employer I had one starting school and one starting a special needs nursery so for the first two weeks could I leave at 12. They said fine. I then found out it was a 12.30 finish so I asked if the school could hold on to him for 15 minutes until i got there; they said no. I do understand why, but the full school day for his class will be 2pm from 1st October, so there are FOUR weeks of early pick ups, a nightmare for working parents!