Excessive settling in times in reception year! Who'd like full time earlier?

[Guy1973]

I am somewhat despairing at the schedule for the start of the reception year at our primary. We have three settling in days where the youngest ten in each class go first, the next ten and then the oldest, which bring us to the 8th September. I can see how that's sensible, beds in the youngest children first in smaller groups etc, that's fine. They are then offering only half days for a further fortnight, so the first full day of school is not until the 25th, ridiculous!

They justify this by saying the teachers need to do home visits but the maths on doing that, versus time saved with half days doesn’t even begin to add up and besides, quite a few of the parents don’t want this home visit, as we went in and met the teachers a few weeks back.
It seems lots of schools go straight into full days and others manage to offer parents a choice, which I think is by far the best solution. Younger, more timid children can settle in gently but those who have been in full time nursery 8am-6pm from the age of 6 months (like mine) simply don’t need this.
I’ve put this on a couple of local forums and many people agree with me but the school doesn’t seem keen to listen to the working parents for whom this is a massive pain. Interestingly there was a court case that ruled in favour of a working mum and told the school they were obliged to offer FT. I’m not sure to what extent this might set a precedent…?

www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jun/29/infant-schools-settling-in-period-parents-work

What annoys me most about this policy is that makes life difficult for the modestly or low paid. If you earn squillions and/or have a full time nanny, as many in my neighbourhood do, it’s not really any skin off your nose. For those with two working parents on modest incomes, it might cause financial hardship and mean their kids have to forgo things they enjoy, which doesn’t seem very fair to me.
I’d be interested to hear from those whose schools do offer a choice of FT or PT for the first few weeks, or anyone in local authority administration who can shed light on the legal obligation side of things. Has anyone succeeded in lobbying or pressurising their school to offer FT earlier? I think it’s about time this system was changed to stop penalising the least well off and offer a better solution for everyone.

At DD's new school the reception children start a week later than the rest of the school and then have 2 half days (one leaving before lunch and one after) before starting full time on the Wednesday.

We are in East Anglia

I agree there has to be a middle ground

I do have to just comment though...."people know this before having children"....wait what ? Who that actual fuck researches settling in periods in school starts for 4 and 5 year olds before conceiving??? Really ? That's insane to say the absolute least

Should I also not have conceived before calculating the exact rate of inflation so I'm aware of the car insurance costs my 19mth old will incur when he's 18?

Back to the point .....it's frustrating when your DC have been in nursery or childcare for long days and are used to it and honestly my ds1 going in September is very confused why he doesn't start full time straight away

"Our school explained how their policy of a home visit and slow start is child-centred and designed to settle them in, in the best way they know. " rubbish! As catkind says it's not child centred to have ever changing routines and hours. They often get confused and anxious wondering why they haven't been picked up yet today when yesterday they were home at this time.

Ours in September is 2 hours in the morning for the first week,

Then 3-4 hours for the 2nd week

Then full time on the 3rd week!

My youngest is 10. When she started school she had a week of mornings, a week of afternoons, a week of mornings including lunch, can't remember what else but it went on until October! I had to save my Annual Leave and take 4 weeks off at once.

A lot of people were able to send their children to their old nursery for the times they weren't at school but unfortunately school was near home and nursery was about 15 miles away (near previous workplace) so it wasn't do-able. Of course this has a knock-on effect to children starting nursery who can't go full time until the children starting school have finally gone full time in October.

My elder children started school 20+ years ago full time from day one, and I started school back in 1968 full time from day one, having never been away from my mother. None of us was traumatised by the experience.

I don't think it's in the children's interests to start school with a routine that changes from week to week or day to day even without adding in a hodge podge of makeshift childcare arrangements outside school hours.

^^ I agree with this. Particularly in the case of children like my DS1 who don't handle changes to routines well.

It's very important not to rush this stage of your child's life. It can be very traumatic for them and a full school day very tiring. There is no opportunity for a nap like at nursery or full time childcare. They are taking in so much new information, new relationships, new rules etc I am a TA in years 1&2 and think the children benefit form a part time start. As a pp said, if it's childcare issue, that's more about you than the child.

At my school, the first week is home visits, the second week the children leave before lunch and the third week they stay for lunch but leave straight after, before a full day the fourth week.

"There is no opportunity for a nap like at nursery " why not? It's just as easy to accommodate a sleepy child in reception as in nursery a cosy quite corner is always manageable.

Not really mrzas it's not on the curriculum! I think if that was happening , the parents would be called to take the child home.

At my DD's school, they did part time for a week then it was optional for the next 2 weeks. I continued with part time as I was SAHM but after 3 days my eldest DD asked to stay because her friends were having lunch at school and she wanted to stay so we went with that. My second child was not so outgoing so she did part time for the whole optional time and would have stayed that way if it was down to her!

I assure you there are

And in over twenty years I've never called a parent to take their child home because they were sleepy

it's not child centred to have ever changing routines and hour

And you're basing that on - what exactly?

The teachers are the professionals, I trust them when they say they know this works best in a school setting - unless I have evidence otherwise.

I understand there may be ND children for whom this may be an issue - but that is a specific need of those DC, nothing to do with what's best for DC in general.

Over twenty years experience teaching reception an Early years MEd

For DS5 (queried as ASD with other SN) the lack of routine of these split shifts would have been an absolute nightmare.

mrz - so at the meeting we had at our DC's school (once when DS when there years ago, and again recently for DD) when several teachers stood there and told us they understood it was inconvenient but that they did it because they thought it was in the best interests of the child - what then?

Were they lying to us? Were they making it up?

I am sending my children to this school, the teachers say they think this is the best for our children and therefore they have my support.

As a teacher surely the support of parents is important?

Why would you be encouraging people to start theur school career with "threats of enforcement"? Surely that's not in anyone's interests?

"Not really mrzas it's not on the curriculum" strange as it's the same curriculum they follow in nurseries and preschools

Were they lying or simply following school policy ? Were you misled? Definitely!

Sounds to me like the teachers have never taught in a school where they didn't do extended settling so just assumed that the only way they knew was the best way.

Well we seem to have about 50/50 teachers telling us it's in the children's best interest to settle in gradually or quickly. Some of them must be wrong. So I'm inclined to believe those that have actually tried both like mrz.

Who cares? Traumatic? If children are told this is traumatic how will they cope with life.
School is a normal part of life let's not overreact.
Kids can have many things happen to them that are actually negative.
Starting school isn't one of them.
I'd argue if they are sleepy then they aren't going to bed at a reasonable time or they are being fed a healthy diet.

TA in Reception here. In response to a PP definitely no way to accommodate a sleepy child in a corner of a crowded noisy Year R classroom with 30 children I'm afraid.
The change to a new environment is very tiring to children. Even those used to full time nursery. It's wearing mentally as well as physically. They get tired and easily and it doesn't make to a great start to school life.
I have found a gradual part time start to be really important to Reception children.
Also home visits are invaluable. You can't get the same insight into what the home environment is like just from meeting parents. Obviously those at risk are red flagged but there are other issues that are just so helpful to know about through that first year that you can pick up from home visits. Plus letting the child see you having a chat/cuppa with their parents in their own home helps them to see you as a friendly welcome new person in their life.

I think as in all things there are a few children who are just not ready for full days but for the majority an extra couple of hours isn't an issue especially as many are used to much longer hours in childcare.