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.

Many teachers are parents too- we don't get annual leave. My childcare arrangements are 'me': as in, I'm off when DD is. So starting school was really tricky and I had to lend a few favours from family members who didn't really know DD well.

No home visits here thank goodness, I don't see the point at all. DD began school with 11 friends from nursery and was completely ready. 3 half days, then 2 more with lunch, then f/t. NW England.

Se London ...
1st week September is home visits
2nd week until just before lunch
3rd week until after lunch
4th week alternate dates pick up after/before lunch
5th week full time.

We did it last year and despite previously being in nursery ds needed it.
School tires them out so much more and routines are stricter.

Home visit I though was lovely and thinks helps kids feel they are initially an individual not just one of 30.

Andcake, that sounds lovely. Good to hear positive reviews of the staggered starts.

Andcake - that sounds like a nightmare for working parents and very confusing for those children who thrive on routine.

I know that school isn't childcare, but when you use a nursery that has a new intake in September, so can't have your child to fill in the gaps, after school clubs, that obviously run after school, not for random mornings and afternoons, and holiday clubs, that don't run in term time, what are you meant to do for 5 weeks?

My DC's are thankfully past receiption age but my niece is starting school this year. She has been at full time nursery for 3 years and can't wait to start school as she has some friends already there. 5 of her nursery class are going to the same school.

They have been given a schedule for staggered start in September lasting four weeks. My DSis has opted to send her full time from day one (as have the parents of some of her friends) as they do not have any childcare for September to cover the variety of hours she wouldn't be in school. She will be going to breakfast and after school club but this isn't available whilst on staggered hours. My DSis and BIL are teachers and therefore can't take a month off work to facilitate the proposed staggered hours.

Parker - did they have any problem getting the school to agree to take your DN full time from the start? Most schools don't seem to present this as an option, even though it appears to be a legal requirement.

Not as far as I'm aware. She put it in writing and sent it to the school (on the same day as the other parents who planned on their DC starting on day one). They all received a standard letter about a home visit at the start of September but my DSil emailed saying that they were not available then as they would be at work (and DN at school!).

Apparently there have been a lot of complaints as the morning start time for those on the staggered start is half an hour later than the start time for other children at the school. Parents with older DC's are querying what are they meant to do - take the older sibling to school and then drive around for half an hour!

I can't tell you all how useful the responses on this thread have been, so thank you all very much. I think it has shown that it's a pretty divisive issue and there's not much of a consensus among teachers about which is the best way. Given this, and considering the posts on this thread overwhelmingly point to the fact some people value and would like half days and others desperately don't, the obvious solution is to offer choice.
It seems the protracted nature of our school settling in is more often chosen by London-based primaries and I'd be interested to find out why. Though some posters have been offered 3 week starts similar to mine, it seems outside London there seems to be a far greater tendency to start FT or offer choice - lucky you!
I agree Oldtrees, 'threat of enforcement' was an extremely poor choice of words on my part, which I'll retract, however, it seems there have been quite a few situations where heads haven't listened to the needs of parents and they have been put in the position of having to insist on FT from day 1, in line with the school's legal obligations. I very much hope that my school will be willing to compromise and it won't be a case of conflict but, as other posters have pointed out, i think it's a bit dodgy that it isn't made clear to parents that they have the option of asserting their rights, should they choose to. I think if it were made clearer, many more people would request compromise or insist which would create a more open and informed dialogue nationally. Two weeks ago I had no idea of the legal precedent and I bet millions of other parents don't either. Perhaps the LEA should insist that settling in policies are flagged up before parents apply and that their legal rights are made clear to them on acceptance of their place? That would perhaps go some way to addressing this issue...

But it's not about you and what is easiest for you.

It is about settling the children into school.

Just because you think your child will be fine starting full time doesn't;

a. mean you are correct.
b. mean it's the right thing for the other children in the class/year group.

And for anyone who thinks that staggered starts makes it easier for the teacher, let me assure you that it doesn't. The teachers are either doing home visits, meeting parents in school, meeting with nurseries/social services/medical personnel, or, of they have a few minutes spare, will be sorting classrooms and resources for their new classes.

I hate this assumption that teachers and schools are lazy.

AND TEACHERS ARE NOT BABYSITTERS TO FIT IN WITH YOUR SCHEDULE!

"I hate this assumption that teachers and schools are lazy." I don't think anyone on this thread has assumed that. The fact is that children are entitled to start full time and just because you think a staggered start is fine that doesn't (in your words)

a. mean you are correct.
b. mean it's the right thing

Chickenowner, have you even read half or any of this thread? Where precisely do I assume that schools and teachers are lazy?

At no point have I said I'm 'correct' either, so you are simply talking nonsense I'm afraid.

I have simply suggested that it appears introducing an element of choice allows those who want a gentle start the half days they seek and those who don't it offers FT education a little more quickly.

If you have a sensible point to make about that then by all means make it...

The thing is if you have a child who has been in full time nursery before starting school how is it better fro them to be passed pillar to post in the first few weeks whilst working parents try to sort out some kind of childcare to cover the varying hours for the first few weeks - is that really settling for them? It seems the opposite to me.
As others have said it isn't simply keep them in nursery longer -as the nursery may have pressure to free up places for new starts and somehow the child has been to transported from school to nursery during the day.
Again school isn't childcare but in this day and age where both parents are encouraged to and might need to go out to work , schools should take childcare provision into consideration.

But it's not about you and what is easiest for you.

It is about settling the children into school.

Just because you think your child will be fine starting full time doesn't;

a. mean you are correct.
b. mean it's the right thing for the other children in the class/year group.

Yes, it's about settling the children into school. I expect that in most cases, staggered starts are done with the best of intentions.

But I don't agree that they're best for all children. I have a child who thrives on routine and is unsettled by changes to his routine. Happily for us, his primary school was full time from day 1. He settled in quickly. I'm convinced, from my knowledge of my child, that a staggered start would have been upsetting for him and made it harder for him to settle into the school environment. (The fuss he kicked up after the transition day last term, where they spent the day in the class they'll be in next year, has only convinced me of this. We had more than a fortnight of "but why do I have to go back to old teachers class, we went to new teachers class so I have to go there now" after the transition day).

Even for a child less routine oriented than mine, frequent changes to the school routine could be confusing and unsettling.

It's not just about full days being easier for parents.
And FWIW, I wasn't working when my son started school. I could have accommodated staggered starts of any duration. So no personal logistical problems with work, childcare etc to influence my views here.

Stuff that makes life a nightmare for parents is rarely good for the kids. Parents using up their annual leave to deal with this means that children have fewer chances for holidays with their parents. Parents are heavily involved in young children's education, and positive relations and communication between parents and teachers is very important for kids; I suggest that it is a good idea to get parents on side early on and ensure their goodwill, not piss them off without good reason.

Agree that "people know this when they have kids" is a shitty attitude.

We already need to wait until kids are 4 for them to be in full time education (compared to 2 or 3 in my country). The staggered start in reception is the icing on the cake and a complete pain in the arse. It does a disservice to parents who work and the many kids who are yearning to get going.

Also don't get this thing about kids being exhausted all the time. DD never was and she is the youngest in her class. At 4/5, most children should be able to do 9-3.30pm.

Bitlost, do you actually mean full-time education at the age of 2 or 3? Or do you just mean nursery/pre-school that is free or charge?

Agree that "people know this when they have kids" is a shitty attitude

It was me who originally said this. I didn't mean it to be insulting. I was making the point that where I live, the settling in period lasts for months, years even if you count the fact that the school day is shorter for the first three years. I have never in all my years heard a parent complain about the inconvenience of the settling in period and I put this down to the fact that everyone just accepts that that is how it works when your children go to school. I do a school pick up at 2pm, 3pm and 4pm two days a week. It's a pain as it means my entire afternoon seems to be spent driving to school and back. Most childminders spend their afternoons in a constant round of school pickups. So I do understand that it's a pain. But everyone knows that's how it's going to be, so we have to arrange our work and home life around it, there's no other option.

Treaclesoda - it's not the fact that the school day is shorter than the working day which is the issue - that's where breakfast and after school clubs are so valuable. The problem is the staggered school hours at the start of schooling - sometimes taking the majority of September and that this is impossible for many parents. How many employers will let an employee take 3-4 weeks off in one go ?

I think if it were made clearer, many more people would request compromise or insist which would create a more open and informed dialogue nationally.

What do you mean by "compromise" here, OP? Surely if parents are "insisting", there's no compromise to be had, just caving in to demands?

Parker we have staggered hours for the first two months of primary school.

No employer lets someone take two months off to settle their child into school. We all have to make other arrangements, usually a combination of taking leave and sharing the pickups with other parents etc. It's a complete pain, but it's something we have four years to plan for.

We also don't have any breakfast clubs or after school clubs where I live. Or holiday clubs.

I teach reception . We have changed to all in full time on the same day as the rest of the school at parents requests .Many come from our preschool and are used to the school staff and staying full days .We have have a comprehensive transition program and all will have experienced two full days before September . Some are absolutely exhausted and it is harder to get to know them but they have (so far )all settled very quickly , parents appreciate it and on the whole it works .

Treaclesoda - that sounds a nightmare. I'm so glad we decided to send our DT's ft from day one. We benefited due to less stress and they benefited from the ongoing routine which they had already had from 3 years ft at nursery.

SuburbanRhonda - compromise might be a school having 3 weeks of half days and parents (who want full time from the start) agreeing to one week of half days.