Why is my son's school only doing two hours a day in Reception?

[CorporatetoKids]

I am trying to work out why my son is doing almost two weeks of gradual hours in Reception.
9-11am, 9-12pm the first week and then another three days of only a few hours. I think he is getting very confused about it and it's a lot for parents to adapt to when we have to work!
When my eldest started a few years ago there were a few short days and then straight in.
I assume a lot of children have been in childcare before, so what is the benefit? My son thinks school now means 11 am finishes! Argh.

Ours does everyone in for the first few days in that part of the week (they start a day later than the rest of the school) and then parents pick 3 days for the following week so there's a slightly smaller class meaning they can get to know the kids better... then they're all in full-time. Works fairly well and it's at least easy to organise childcare around.

Children have the right to a full time place from the first day of term. Speak to the school, and then the Local Authority.

Where I work, all children have the option to start full time straight away. If parents think their child would benefit from a part time attendance for a couple of weeks or so, then that's fine. We just have a chat to agree the best pattern of attendance (usually 5 mornings a week initially).

We have 60 new reception children.

In Ireland they finish an hour earlier than the rest of the school for 2 YEARS!! 9-1.20 in DD’s school! AND they still finished at 12 for the first week to ease them in!

I live in a village with 3 primary schools, all are single form entry of 30 children and ours is the only school that doesn’t start full time straight away.

It has changed over the years as when my ds started there ( he’s now 16 ) it was a week of half days and then full time. Dd is there now in year 4 and when she started it was a nightmare as day one was 9-10.30 then day two was 9-11 and they kept adding half hours on here and there and after almost 2 weeks it was full time.

Our school started back on 3rd September and the reception class did their first full day today. I am a SAHM but it must be a logistical nightmare for working parents.

I think it’s harder for the dc to do this. They aren’t getting used to a full day and are constantly finishing at different times. I don’t know why our school does it to be honest.

We opted out of the staggered start and sent DT’s full time from day. DH and I both work full time and holiday entitlement is precious. DT’s had previously been in full time nursery and were also going to the school breakfast and after school clubs. They had no problems but would have been confused by a staggered day with disjointed childcare for the rest of the day.

Literally every local school here is doing it differently to each other this year. There doesn't seem to be a standard format.

I agree with it in principle but think if it goes on too long it's counterproductive as it just confuses the children and takes them longer to settle. They don't know if they're coming or going.

Schools cannot force you to comply with their chosen part-time schemes.

There has been a series of rulings by the Office of the Schools Adjudicator over how The Schools Admissions Code relates to this.

Children are offered places on the basis of a full-time education from their first day at school. If you want your child to attend full time, you only need inform the head and they must make the necessary arrangements.

This is just one of a number of schools admissions issues on which parents are entitled to have some choice. Unfortunately schools don’t like this and don’t make you aware of your rights, despite being directly instructed by their local authorities to do so.

The downside is that, as with numerous other issues, if you don’t suck it up and do what you’re told, you can very quickly be labelled "that parent" and subjected to unfavourable treatment throughout your child’s school years.

There are some really weird introductions here (one school is still having one full
Day, one half, one full, etc all week) and I think it is causing a lot of confusion for the children. Our school does a half day then straight into full days next week.

I can’t see that it’s best for the children when schools vary wildly in their approach- if it was known that a slow introduction was best they’d all do it.

Luckily we have flexibility but it must be a nightmare for working parents with none of that who don’t live or work near the school

We didn’t have any problems in opting from full time from day one. We had no option as we didn’t have childcare to cover all the odd hours/half days. Many other parents chose the same approach- the majority of families had both parents in full time jobs.

My daughter is just starting reception full time on Monday after a two week phasing in... the first week she was not at school at all just a 20 minute home visit then this week she had been in in the mornings which have got longer as the week progresses although not in at all on Tuesday. As full time working parents this has been an absolute logistical nightmare as we don’t work in the town in which she is going to school. We have had to hire a car this week as we only need one normally to do pick ups and still be able to get to work &’daughter to childcare. I travelled to Manchester with my daughter last week to get help with childcare as was cheaper than paying extra childcare and on top of that in order to guarantee a place for wraparound care we had to pay in full for the month of September term (21 days) despite the fact we could not use 10 days of those sessions. On top of that there have already been two full class party invites one of which is on the day that I was planning something small for my daughter’s birthday one announced on the class Facebook page. Quite frankly it has caused financial issues & a whole lot of unnecessary stress & our daughter is now completely unsettled. A shorter phasing in would have been far more appropriate however it would seem that in our area there is a higher majority of one parent that doesn’t work than those of us who have to...

School is not child care
It is taxpayer funded
suck up the rules
and in 26 weeks move on
for the next 70 years of your life

Listening. The legislation is that children are entitled to start full time education from the start of term. It doesn’t say they must start on a staggered basis. Mine went full time from day one which was best for them as they were use to full time nursery and we also had no one to look after them if they had done a staggered start as DH and I were at work.

The legislation is that children are entitled to start full time education from the start of term
link please

just that teaching legislation is all about hours per year as far as I know

"School is not childcare." Well, yes and no. Part of the original raison d'etre for compulsory state education in the U.K. was to have somewhere to put the little rascals because The Factory Acts had forced mums to stay home looking after them instead of being out at work themselves. The resulting labour shortage pushed wages up, so bosses demanded action to push mums back to work and wages back down.

It’s no coincidence that school holidays still reflect the religious festivals when factories would be closed, and harvest time when rural children would be needed in the fields.

The Schools Admissions Code 2014 (2.16) states:

"Admission authorities must provide for the admission of all children in the September following their fourth birthday. The authority must make it clear in their arrangements that, where they have offered a child a place at a school:
a) that the child is entitled to a full-time school place in the September following their fourth birthday." etc.

This information was circulated by my local authority to all schools and childcare providers, not because schools disputed the facts, but because they were failing in their duty to make all parents fully aware of their right to choose, and because of complaints about heads who were deliberately making things difficult for any parent who exercised their rights.

The document continued "The Schools Admissions Code does not specifically mention the word 'full-time' nor does it make any explicit reference to short periods of induction, but the implication of paragraph 2.16 is that the place is full-time and it is at parental request that the child may take up a part-time place.

"This was confirmed in a determination by the Office of the Schools Adjudicator (OSA) in 2013, the determination document for which is available on the OSA website (case reference ADA/2479)."

The OSA has had to make more rulings, subsequent to 2013, because some schools persisted in claiming that the aforementioned case only applied to one particular school. In each instance, the OSA ruled in favour of parents exercising their legal right to a full time education and against the schools trying to impose a one-size-fits-all staggered settling programme. Note that in each case, taxpayers money was wasted as a result of a school resisting clear rules and previous OSA judgments.

Its bonkers isnt it.

As if staying all day when they are just gonna play anyway and provisions exist already If parents want to do part time or defer a term.

If you have to drive across town in traffic or have a longish walk to school then wtf are u supposed to do when you drop off kid one but cant drop off kid 2 til 9.30.

Hang around outside in the rain? Sit on the floor in reception for 40 mins?

I dont see how having erratic drop offs and a patch work of wrap around care and walking aimeless round the petrol garage down the road for half an hour is somehow less stress ful or traumatic than playing all afternoon and having a doze or little bit of quiet time.in the reading corner...

Most kids have done some full time days in pre school.

You have the sakenproblem the other end too where it's not worth going home when you have to pick up the older kid.

Just stupid

So it is, in fact, the schools and not the parents who are refusing to "suck up the rules".

It is the Schools who are wasting taxpayers money, when they have to be told repeatedly by the OSA and their local authorities to follow those rules.

One might argue the schools are taking taxpayers money under false pretences. They are providing a part-time education whilst continuing to draw taxpayer funds for a full-time education.

This continues to be a problem in my neck of the woods. But it is heartening to read other posts which suggest many schools in other areas are finally getting the message that they need to "suck up the rules" and "move on".

I am of the view that schools should be required to publish details of arrangements for year R plus availability and hours of any wraparound care at the time the local authority applications booklet is published. Some parents get a shock every year unnecessarily and it contributes to the gender pay gap. Schools only get away with it because most people only need to use them once or twice in their lifetimes.