Has anyone used the ruling in the most recent report from the Schools Adjudicator to successfully challenge compulsory part-time entry in Reception?

[heheheheheheh]

grips://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/393886/OSA_Annual_Report_2014.pdf para 58 states that schools must provide full-time places from the start of the autumn term.

My dc's school offers only part-time places until the end of September, and they justify it by saying it helps the children settle. Many schools in the UK adopt different approaches to the settling-in process, but there is no research into how this affects outcomes. I note that all the schools I know in the independent sector offer full-time places from day one, so I doubt the claims that part-time Reception education is ultimately better for children - otherwise the people paying for their children's education would be demanding it.

The part-time period is very hard for working parents and has a disproportionate impact on people in lower-paid jobs as these almost always have less flexibility for taking leave.

I'm sure that by challenging the school on this I will be known as "that parent", which is not the best way to start things off, but it bothers me that schools can apparently operate in breach of rulings like this, particularly when the impact on families and their incomes is difficult.

So has anyone else challenged their dc's school on this with success?

Dds school is doing this too. not staggering the amount of children, just the picking up at lunch time bit. having an older child in the school and schopl not being local it dies mean I'm driving there and back three times a day which is a pain in the arse and frankly would be a pain if it was a ten min walk away.

through MN I was aware that you could request full time place however I don't like the idea of dd being on her own without her class mates as they have all gone home.

I don't work full time and I work later in the day so it's not a problem. with work. but still a pain in the arse.

is there actual documented proof that this is better overall ad I started school full time string away as did everyone else back then and it was fine.

is there any data or studies to back up the benefits?

I think there's a danger in polarising the debate too much. I don't think parents who want their child to go to school full-time are feckless, irresponsible or uncaring. I also don't think that teachers that prefer a staggered intake are doing it for their own benefit.

There are lots of compelling arguments for and against and no evidence-based research. There is no single common approach. What there is is secondary legislation giving parents the right to determine how their child attends school.

My school will be going to school full-time several weeks before their peers because that is, in both parents' judgement, the best approach for all of us. I am sure that the teacher will have similar views to the poster who said this was selfish and bad for the child, but weighing up the arguments, both of us parents politely disagree and wish to exercise our legal right to full-time education for our child.

Very measured post, hehehe!
I am actually a teacher myself which, as I said, offers little flexibility for me to stay home at the beginning of Sept. I do not think schools do it just to annoy parents. I'm sure it helps those children with sah parents who are not used to being in full time to settle gently. It also helps teachers get initial obs and assessments done. Get the measure of their intake and not be always playing catch up as is possible in a Reception class esp where the teacher has very little day to day help. However, none of that detracts from the fact that it's an impossible situation for some parents. Many simply cannot afford the leave (some schools do it over 3wks) Others simply do not have the flexibility in their jobs to cope.

Effic, what do you suggest to a set of parents who are teachers themselves who have no family back up and may be new to the school so not yet know other parents? Would your HT allow you to leave at 1pm for 2wks to facilitate this with your own child?
Our local primary to a week of half days then a week of 2pm finish. The 2pm finish is almost worse because the playground and the cars in the street are then full of parents and restless reception children hanging around waiting for older siblings to finish at 3.10. Not enough time to go home then come back. The theory of it is one thing but it's simply unworkable in practice for a great many parents.

For us, we both work full time. I work out of the home and dh w

Whoops, previous comment got eaten up. Meant to say with me working FT outside of the home and dh working FT from the home, it's meant a lot of juggling this week and the next for when dd starts reception.

Her brother started year 3 on Thursday. She was home then and Friday. Dh and I took turns staying home and working from home (lucky I can do that, but I was also sending emails and reports early in the morning, late at night). Wednesday, we both had a meeting and so I ended up palming them off to a friend for a couple of hours - wine was bought as a thank you. (Ordinarily I would use summer camp etc).

Coming week, Monday I'm going into the office half the day, Tuesday same thing. Staying home Tuesday morning as teacher is doing a home visit. Wednesday she's off to school for the whole day thankfully. Thursday and Friday again more juggling.

In laws are also 6h by car away and 13h by flight. I would imagine such families are more and more common now. We have friends who are either both international, one half international, or even both English but live miles and counties away from the grandparents.

As a reception teacher I've experienced various staggered starts to everyone full time from day one and contrary to what some seem to be saying found full time to be much better for most children ...far less disruptive! Children get into routines quickly and settle easily.
My school has had full time entry from the start for about 15 years with no problems. Of course there needs to be some flexibility.

OP, I'm glad they agreed straight away - I thought they might not need legal action!

Glad you got this sorted out, OP.

DS1's just started reception - his school is full time from day 1 because they think that helps the children settle faster.

Well sone on challenging calmly using the adjudication. Sounds like a decent school as well if they've not fought you. Which we know they can't but some don't just say ok!

As for being selfish sending children FT from day one I've never agreed with that - they get 15 hours a week from 3 so that should be the transition period into education. Starting school is the next step - remaining at 15 hours for 3 weeks is unnecessary IMO.

It actually was worse for my Ds who is summer born. Back when he started reception they did the autumn borns FT from the beginning. Spring borns PT from middle of week 1 and then lunch in school and FT after 4 weeks. The summer borns started a whole week later, did PT only until half term. Then did a week of stay for lunch and then FT.
My ds came from day nursery where he did 8-4 to being 1 of a select number of pupils having to go home. He could not understand it. He thought he'd done something wrong as they kept telling him he 'was allowed' to stay all day. He didn't settle in well at all. He has ASD so starting last he found it a struggle integrating in already formed groups and found the routine change FT to PT (when there were FT children) too confusing. The school Werner even talking about maybe him needing to do longer PT. (again I know this is illegal but they try!)
School wouldn't believe me when I said once he was FT he'd settle better - they had to concede I was right though

Personally I think there needs to be more trust in parental views about a child's readiness for school. As long as a child is FT the term after they start 5. I do dislike this attitude that a school knows what best for individual children they actually don't really know at entry point.