Half days for ages!

[SunnySideDeepDown]

My child starts school in September and their school has sent an emailing outlining the first few weeks schedule, which includes a two week build up to full days. The first half week is until 11.30. Then a week or so of staying until after lunch and then a few days until 2pm.

I find it really tone deaf of the school to expect parents to be able to juggle this (we both work full time busy jobs and have 2 other, older children at the same school). Our annual leave is already stretched.

Are there any teachers here with insight on why the school would offer this?

My child is used to full time preschool and has older siblings in the school. They’re more than ready to jump straight into school life.

Our LA has told us they’re entitled to full time from day 1 on the offer email, shall I raise this with the school? I don’t want to be a trouble maker but I just can’t see the rationale. Isn’t it easier for kids to have a schedule and get used to it, rather than changing it every few days?

With all due respect, my information is not 'incorrect' as I've simply said what some schools do. That not incorrect, that's a fact. I haven't talked about entitlement or legalities.

Schools need to arrange admissions for Reception age children to provide them with full time education from the September of that school year. It's up to school to plan the exact arrangements. There's nothing to say it has to be the exact date Year 1-6 start back. Many schools have systems which admit different year groups back on different days in September. It's also very common for secondary schools to start their new Year 7 children on a different day to the rest. This is the same principle.

If something doesn't work for parents, school should sort something for them, but they're not doing anything wrong by planning a program which does not start Reception full time on the very same day as the rest of the school. Otherwise schools wouldn't be allowed to do it. Yet many many do.

This comes up every year on here and there's always confusion into the exact legalities.

No they don’t. They have autonomy over this.

Ours does full time from day one and the very experienced and lovely Teachers say that they settle better if they have the same routine from day one. Just tell them that you’re both working and unfortunately can’t facilitate picking them up before the end of the school day.

Schools are expected to provide full-time provision from the start of term in September
for children starting in Reception class. Although some schools may offer an initial
transition period, to enable children to settle in to school life, this should be no more than a
few days, which allows schools some flexibility in starting the year with children having shorter
days and working up to full days. Our advice is that schools should limit the transition period
to week, as a maximum, from the start of term.
Schools who wish to have a transition period can be asked by parents to provide full-time
provision from the first day of term, which is their legal right. Schools should work with parents
requesting this to accommodate their wishes.

I would say don’t be that parent. Teachers often have a lot of work with AM and PM groups and it’s better for children to have a gradual settling in. You don’t want your child to be there alone for the parts of the day. Just factor it in it’s 2 weeks and I know a lot of parents say ‘but my child is used to nursery 8-6’ but this is different . After the 2 weeks you can have them there all
day and even book wraparound etc .

Working parents don’t have an additional two weeks holiday entitlement to cover a staggered start particularly when it’s not in the best interests of their DC’s.

Just to add as well, Nursery and Reception are both part of the EYFS. If we're throwing around accusations of people providing inaccurate information, your idea that nursery doesn't count as "education" is as incorrect as you can get.

The first day of Reception involves lots of playing and getting to know the setting. People are quick to be outraged at the idea of their children not received full time 'education' for day one but I'm interested to hear what they actually think 'education' looks like at this age. We're Reception, we teach through play and it's how the children learn. The main focus of the first few days is building relationships and learning rules.

So where are I incorrect? Everything you have quoted is what I've said, just worded differently!

A few days of part time is useful because the teachers use that time to get to know the children. However, you just need to speak to the school and say that you would like your dc to start full time and it should be fine. If they’re rubbish, ask for the governors email address and email them.

The school is not compliant with the School Admissions Code by presenting phased entry as a fait a compli.

'2.17 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 child is entitled to a full-time place in the September following their fourth birthday;'

This has been established since 2021 and to be honest, it would make me questing the quality of the school. If they don't know this, what else are they not up to date with?

DT’s went to full time nursery from six months old so covered the early years and were more than ready for full time Reception class.

Starting Reception on, as an example the second day of the September term is different from starting Reception on a staggered basis.

Just say no. My child had been in full time nursery since she was 10 months old. The staggered start/finish would have thrown her out of routine. I told them no, we had a bit of an argument back and forth. They stood firm, so I just didn’t collect her at lunch as “instructed”. After 3 days other parents must have noticed that there was a child still there at lunch, and by the end of the week I’d say 7/8 kids were staying. For the first few days she just loved all the attention she was getting, never harmed her being alone as for lunch she went in with year 1.

You can reject it and insist on full time. A transition period can be really helpful for some children, but I completely agree that 2 weeks is a long one. I totally appreciate the juggle (DH and I both work full time), it's really tough. Children who are used to nursery would be fine with a full time start. Playing devil's advocate... just remember that school's purpose is to educate, not to provide free childcare - that's just an added bonus of the system we live in. Good schools will always consider the logistics of working families, but it isn't their first priority when working to the best interests of the children.

Wow punchy just not collecting. I had to keep our ft Nanny for the first term as DS was finishing at 12/1 until Xmas (2008).

Just to let you know that not all kids cope with full time straight away but many are not in full time prior to starting school, unlike the assumption here. Schools are not childcare, they are about teaching and know over many years how best to settle children. Unfortunately some these days are being complained at by parents to suit work schedules rather than anything to do with what’s best for dc. Yes some dc are fine from the start but with 30 kids many classes are split in half or teachers even do home visits. School is for the long haul and schools need to get it right not rush it. My dd would have benefitted for even longer half days as she found it exhausting, falling asleep on the sofa

I should have put in the original post but this is a small village single form school with 20 children per class.

Also, my child didn’t have settling sessions at preschool, they don’t do that at ours. They started a week after they turned 2 years old. The first day I stayed for 30mins, then the rest was plain sailing. As I said, I appreciate all children are different and some are less confident or secure than others, but my CV old has consistently been fine in these situations. Their two siblings are at the same school and can’t wait to join them. They’ll be fine with full time, I know it.

Indeed. Where have I said a longer staggered period is ok? If you read, I actually disagree with a drawn out process.

A few days is absolutely fine though and, as you've even quoted yourself, schools are not doing anything wrong if they do a few part time days to settle in.

DT’s went to full time nursery from six months old so covered the early years and were more than ready for full time Reception class.

They absolutely haven't 'covered the early year' by attending nursery. We follow the same EYFS curriculum in Reception. Nursery isn't the end of it. Reception's first day will look just like their nursery experience, just in a different room/setting (for most, some EYFS units are even shared between Nursery and Reception). By offering a child a few hours in their nursery to cover childcare on the first few days when their peers are part time, school would be offering a full time education for those who require it.

Most children who have attended nursery are indeed more than ready for full time Reception but a change is a change, regardless. A few settling in days are beneficial for most. Clearly you don't agree, but schools are not doing anything wrong in planning a few settling in day if that's what they believe is best for their cohort. You've proved that yourself in your quotes.

No one has said parents should have the option of part time. Although admittedly I can’t see what a week of half days will do to settle any child. If anything, I can see it being confusing and just delaying the inevitable by a few days.

Im saying, MY child is used to full time school days from preschool, is a confident and excited 3rd child who wants to go to school. They’ll settle fine full time, so I’m disappointed my school isn’t actively offering it.

I agree school isn’t childcare, my child wants to learn and will do so more if in school full time rather than sat at home watching TV while I try to WFH around them.

Even if it's not in the best interests if the child or the staff?

Oh sorry they were two separate points. Point 1 - For her a very short transition helped but definitely benefit from being in full time from the first full week.
Point 2 - I was surprised by how different she coped with school compared to nursery, coping full time at nursery is not the same as coping at school so watch out for that.

@BoleynMemories13 It’s absolutely fine to offer part time. My problem is that they should also offer full time.

My child is going to school to learn and will be learning more with a full week. So far it seems the only rationale for part time is to suit those kids who need settling days. My child doesn’t, so I hope the school are amenable when I request full time.

That’s true, and there’s obviously a chance she’ll be very tired and overwhelmed. I’m just not sure how a week or two of part time hours will help with that? Every child is shattered by the October half term.

My previous two children jumped straight into school without issue which is probably why I’m confident my 3rd will. The preschool they go to is very focused on preparing for school; it’s not a nursery setting but a dedicated preschool attached to a different school.

Everyone knows that school isn’t childcare but there is an expectation that children will be at school during certain times.
When you have two working parents a staggered start isn’t realistic - neither are home visits

If it's not in the best interests of the child, the parents have the right to send then part time until the term after they are 5.

If it's not in the best interests of staff, they shouldn't be teaching reception. It's the legislation.