# Why do infants finish at 2 o clock



## gailey (4 Nov 2006)

It drives me crazy.I have a six year old in senior infants finishing at 2 o clock. I have a nine year old finishing at 3 o clock. I have two teenagers in secondary school finishing at 3.30. I spend my most of my day doing school runs as well as working evenings, cooking dinner, homework with kids and usual housework. Why do the smaller kids have to finish at 2.o clock. It drives me crazy. Why can't they finish at 3 o clock. Most families have two parents working and this makes life very awkward. Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous and will it ever change in this country? I know school is not a babysitting service but wouldn't life be a lot easier if all kids finished at the same time and all school holidays were the same for all schools.


----------



## Snork Maiden (4 Nov 2006)

a six hour school day is a long time for four, five and six year olds........Every think of after school care for the little two until 3.30 when you only need to do one trip!


----------



## Sue Ellen (4 Nov 2006)

gailey said:


> all school holidays were the same for all schools.


 
I thought with the introduction of the that this was more or less the case.

Would have to agree with Snork Maiden that it would be a very long day for such young children. Is it totally out of the question for the older ones to walk home?


----------



## Sunnyboy (4 Nov 2006)

gailey said:


> Most families have two parents working


 

I think this is part of the answer to your question. This is a very recent phenomenon. At the time these hours were devised, it was normal to have the Mother at home, looking after the kids. 

Ain't no way that the teachers are now going to give up working, what is in effect a 3 day week, given the number of hours they are required to be in attendance, and their equally generous holidays, without some mega compensation.


----------



## Grifter (5 Nov 2006)

gailey said:


> Am I the only one who finds this ridiculous and will it ever change in this country?


I agree with your sentiments. It needs to change but I don't think it will. I have been in your position in the past. It's not easy. You just have to get on with it. Luckily my children are older now and they can walk to/from school.


----------



## gailey (5 Nov 2006)

Maybe for junior infants six hours is very long but I don't agree that is very long for children in senior infants onwards. I work in the evenings so that I am there during the day for the kids but I spend most of the day chauffering them around. If I am going to have them minded after school I may as well work during the day which I am now considering. As for standardised school holidays the kids can often come home with short notice of days off mostly due to study days taken by teachers. They are allowed a certain amount per year. I know teachers would cause an uproar if hours were to change.


----------



## irishlinks (5 Nov 2006)

If enough people make a fuss maybe something will change. If you accept it - nothing will change. Write to your TD and/or councillor , write to the Dept of Education. I agree - it is silly to have different times for Infants. Do other countries do this?


----------



## Jamjam (5 Nov 2006)

My goodness...these little guys have enough after 5 hours! They need to be active not sitting down passively listening to someone dictate to them all day! Children by law do not have to attend formal school until they are 6. As a result junior and senior infants are considered to be somewhat "preschoolers". Research in to early education would indicate that 5 hours of "formal" learning is enough for this age group while older children need more! That is the only reason its happening!

Annoys me that school is often used as a baby sitting service!(not suggesting that anyone here uses it as a babysitting service!!)It's there to promote the holisitc development of the child (or at least it should be) 

Picking up children at different times sounds like a real inconvienience....NOT! It's in the best interest of the child for heavens sakes...

By the way ...Teachers are allowed 3 personal days a year if they undertake a summer course. A sub is santioned for this so unless your school is incompetent in gettng a replacement your child should have a teacher for that day...or at least be sent in groups to other classes...


----------



## MidlandsBase (5 Nov 2006)

Sunnyboy said:


> I think this is part of the answer to your question. This is a very recent phenomenon. At the time these hours were devised, it was normal to have the Mother at home, looking after the kids.


 
I don't think it was ever envisaged that kids of 4,5 or 6 would have ever been in school for 8 hours a day regardless of whether "the mother was at home looking after the kids". A 40 hour week for these kids!!! I know adults that grumble about doing over 37.5 hours. When my daughter starts in junior infants next year I certainly don't wish for her to spend another 1 or 1.5 hours in school just so it's convenient for me when I collect my 8 year old son.


----------



## extopia (5 Nov 2006)

gailey said:


> I know school is not a babysitting service...



You answered your own question. 



Why do you spend the afternoon chauffering your kids around? Can your older kids not walk, cycle or take a bus?

Unnecessary school runs contribute hugely to traffic problems, as well as promoting a generation of car-dependent kids who then refuse to walk anywhere...


----------



## Jamjam (5 Nov 2006)

MidlandsBase said:


> When my daughter starts in junior infants next year I certainly don't wish for her to spend another 1 or 1.5 hours in school just so it's convenient for me when I collect my 8 year old son.


 

Well said!


----------



## gailey (5 Nov 2006)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset so many people. All I wanted to do was to ask does it drive anyone else crazy with different school finishing times.
I don't expect my child to stay in school for 8 hours a day and I do not see them as unpaid babysitters.  I was just looking for opinions. Some of the replies I received are actually from school teachers going by previous posts so they may be bias and are up in arms at my suggestions.


----------



## pernickety (5 Nov 2006)

irishlinks said:


> Do other countries do this?


 
in france the system seems to cater both for the parents and the kids imo. 

From maternelle (pre-school), which is not obligatory btw but used by something like 90% of children, the hours are (it varies by region but similar) 9 to 12 and 1.30 to 4.30. They have a good 1.5 hour lunch break with a proper 3 course meal and lots of playtime, which helps the energy levels (they don't come home from school absolutely wrecked as i've seen by nephew in Irl doing). The smaller ones have a bed available to them for the afternoon.

In primary, which is from age 6, they are expected to do the very same hours, without the sleep. There are afterschool clubs (and before school clubs) which liaise with teachers and keep the kids until after 6pm if necessary. 

I can collect my 2 ,and the 3rd when he starts next year, at the same time. I don't think it's too much on the kids, and it's brill for the parents wherever they work. it is something I've heard people moan about (including my mother all those years ago) and i don't think it's unreasonable to ask politicians to co-ordinate times (even primary teachers probably have to juggle when their own kids are at school)


----------



## Marion (6 Nov 2006)

I doubt very much if people are upset about your rant. I'm not a primary school teacher nor a parent but I suspect if I were the latter that that I would not send a child to school before the age of 6 nor would I expect them to spend an industrial day at school.

But that's just me.

Marion


----------



## purplealien (6 Nov 2006)

Marion said:


> I doubt very much if people are upset about your rant. I'm not a primary school teacher nor a parent but I suspect if I were the latter that that I would not send a child to school before the age of 6 nor would I expect them to spend an industrial day at school.
> 
> But that's just me


 
A bit harsh Marion!
And don't you think 6 is a bit ol to be going to school - the first 7 years are the most important in a childs life - a child needs to learn how to socialise with children his/her own age. leave it until they're 6 yrs old and you'll have a very introverted yong child. This is my opinion!


----------



## Marion (6 Nov 2006)

A bit harsh?

I don't think so.


All of my youngest (5) nieces/nephews did not go to school until they were at least 5 - granted all of them ( 3 separate families) had a parent at home and they went to play school from age 3/4.

But, I wouldn't regard them as socially deprived. (They are now approx 7)

Marion


----------



## MidlandsBase (6 Nov 2006)

pernickety said:


> in france the system seems to cater both for the parents and the kids imo.
> 
> From maternelle (pre-school), which is not obligatory btw but used by something like 90% of children, the hours are (it varies by region but similar) 9 to 12 and 1.30 to 4.30. They have a good 1.5 hour lunch break with a proper 3 course meal and lots of playtime, which helps the energy levels (they don't come home from school absolutely wrecked as i've seen by nephew in Irl doing). The smaller ones have a bed available to them for the afternoon.


 
Most French state schools are now working to the four day week with Wednesday remaining free and no school on Saturdays. Primary schools generally have 26 hours per week. Perhaps we parents would still expect the kids to go to school for 5 days a week should a system be introduced in Ireland or would that be also an inconvenience? 

Holidays are now being shortened to compensate for the loss of 12 teaching days caused by the adoption of the four day school week. This has caused consternation amongst parents in some parts of France where the traditional September return to school after the long summer holiday has been brought back to the last week of August. And in some areas the summer vacation now starts half way through July – this has resulted in speculation about the need for swimming pools in schools to cool off the kids! I kid you not!!! 

In spite of these changes French schools still have some of the longest school holidays in the world, attending school for only around 160 days out of the whole year. 

As for having a bed for the little ones some schools have just enough room for the children let alone beds. Whilst not disagreeing with the system in France I think there are a lot more higher priority issues in our schools before this issue could be addressed.

http://www.frenchentree.com/fe-education


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Nov 2006)

purplealien said:


> And don't you think 6 is a bit ol to be going to school - the first 7 years are the most important in a childs life - a child needs to learn how to socialise with children his/her own age. leave it until they're 6 yrs old and you'll have a very introverted yong child.



We have made a conscious decision not to send our kids to school until they are 5 1/2. As far as we can see (and my other half is a teacher who has studied early childhood development at postgrad level), many of the social and behavioural difficulties that some young children face at school are attributable to the fact that they started school at an age when they were not ready for it.


----------



## pernickety (6 Nov 2006)

MidlandsBase said:


> As for having a bed for the little ones some schools have just enough room for the children let alone beds. Whilst not disagreeing with the system in France I think there are a lot more higher priority issues in our schools before this issue could be addressed.


 

i agree, but is it time to start making demands instead of accepting what was always the case? 

i forgot to mention the 4 day week which we love, and the summer hols being only 6 weeks long has its advantages too....


----------



## MidlandsBase (6 Nov 2006)

The demands for co-ordinating school  finishing times would come way down my list after Teacher - pupil ratios, teaching standards, lack of school facilities, conditions of schools, school discipline, school curriculum, etc. These I would start making demands of.

The Co-ordinating of schools finishing on time would not even come close to any of these - but that's just me.


----------



## Thirsty (6 Nov 2006)

> does it drive anyone else crazy with different school finishing times


 
Yes - I absolutely agree with you.  I know of families where they make a 30 min trip to school (school of their ethos and choice before anyone starts arguing about why not a closer school) and the parent and younger child sit in the car for an hour waiting for the older child to come out.  

Younger classes don't have to finish an hour earlier; it has become custom/practice but not a requirement.


----------



## extopia (6 Nov 2006)

Kildrought said:


> Yes - I absolutely agree with you.  I know of families where they make a 30 min trip to school (school of their ethos and choice before anyone starts arguing about why not a closer school) and the parent and younger child sit in the car for an hour waiting for the older child to come out.



You've said it - "School of their ethos and choice"

All this is a matter of personal choice. Where you live. Location of school of choice. Age at which you send your child to school. Whether you take your child for a walk or to the park or sit in the car, etc.

What's best for the child?


----------



## Gatherer (6 Nov 2006)

I empathise with you Gailey and it's a reasonable question to ask- but it's obviously best asked of other working parents. People who aren't in the situation, with its emotional and financial frustrations- don't know what you're talking about- and often adopt a hardline stance. That said, the prevailing collect-them-regardless-of-age culture is suffocating on many levels.


----------



## MidlandsBase (6 Nov 2006)

Not sure of the others but I responded as one of two working parents with two kids. Not sure what hardline statements were mentioned by the posters but like everyone we are entitled to an opinion. 

I guess my empathy would be with the children - I am always of the impression that their well-being comes first. Mine is a distance second and always will be. 

I knew that such awkward occasions such as collecting kids at different times would crop up before the kids were born but we made our decision to have two kids knowing this. That was our choice. I'm sure there are lots of other conveniences to come along the way - I would not count collecting kids at different times amongst these by a long shot.


----------



## purplealien (6 Nov 2006)

> Marion said:
> 
> 
> > I would not send a child to school before the age of 6
> ...


6 is way too old to start a child in school. The poor child would be bored off his brains! He would be alot more advanced than all the other children in his class - the majority being 4 year olds.

I'm a stay at home mom with two kids, my eldest is starting school next year. He will be four and 8 months. My second child will be starting in 3 years time and he'll have just turned 5. I don't agree with people sending their children to school when they've only just turned 4, i think it's too young. But on saying that, it all depends on the child! Some children are more advanced/mature than others.


----------



## ubiquitous (6 Nov 2006)

purplealien said:


> 6 is way too old to start a child in school. The poor child would be bored off his brains! ..... But on saying that, it all depends on the child! Some children are more advanced/mature than others.



Bit of a contradiction here?


----------



## extopia (6 Nov 2006)

For the record I also have 2 (now teenage) kids. 

We are a two-income family (not counting babysitting money that the kids now earn ) although for pretty much all of the kids' lives one of us has been working from the home, either part-time or full-time.

So no hardline stance - just the benefit of experience.

We opted for local schools. Thankfully there are good local schools around here, and that was one of the reasons we chose to live here with two young kids. The kids have always walked to and from school. The primary school was a five minute walk. The secondary school is a 20-minute walk.

If it's raining they sometimes get a lift. They're happy kids, they've always loved school and they've always done well. 

We've been lucky. But I'd like to think we've made a good bit of that luck, by providing a secure home base, encouraging the kids to learn, taking part in school activities, helping them out, not mollycoddling them.

I've always felt the length of the school day was about right for the age of the child. Inconvenient at times? Sure - but the kids come first.


----------



## purplealien (6 Nov 2006)

Took what i said out of context!
While a 4 yr old might be mature for his/her age and therefore ready to start school - they will hardly have the maturity of a 6 yr old!

Start a child in school at the age of 6 and you are stunting him of his true potential - all the other kids will have a year or two advantage. It's not fair.


----------



## DirtyH2O (6 Nov 2006)

purplealien said:


> 6 is way too old to start a child in school. The poor child would be bored off his brains! He would be alot more advanced than all the other children in his class - the majority being 4 year olds.
> 
> I'm a stay at home mom with two kids, my eldest is starting school next year. He will be four and 8 months. My second child will be starting in 3 years time and he'll have just turned 5. I don't agree with people sending their children to school when they've only just turned 4, i think it's too young. But on saying that, it all depends on the child! Some children are more advanced/mature than others.


 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...SFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/08/02/useven.xmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...g=yourview&xml=/news/2006/08/02/ublview02.xml

This article is about changing the school start age to seven to bring it in line with many EU countries. In Freakonomics Levitt discusses the fact that they, Norwegians, start school at seven and yet have one of the highest education standards in the world.
Is the real goal to educate the children or to provide childcare for the parents?


----------



## Bamhan (6 Nov 2006)

Marion I think your comments are simply silly.
You are not a parent so how do you know what you would do?

How do you think you would be doing a child any favours by singling them out as different from their peers by starting them in a school class of 4.5 to 5 year olds at he age of 6?

What would that achieve?

I agree with the OP that school times are organised purely to suit the school and the teachers with no consideration for parents or children.

Would car pooling be an option for you?


----------



## Vanilla (6 Nov 2006)

I live in a very rural area- the nearest school isn't in walking distance- there is a school bus. Both myself and my husband work full time. Although neither of our two are in school yet, looking ahead we will simply have to somehow either cut our working hours ( seems unlikely to be feasible but who knows what the next few years will bring) or employ someone to pick them up from school and mind them until we come home. When they are both going to school and leaving at different times, the same will apply. I'm not hardline on the issue, but feel that the best thing for our children would be if either Mr.V or I could mind them ourselves. Since that doesn't seem likely the options are 1. After school care in the school or nearby with lots of other children, 2. minded by a childminder in their home or 3. minded by a childminder in our home. 3 is hard to come by. As for 1 or 2- which is the best?  I really don't know.


----------



## purplealien (6 Nov 2006)

> DirtyH2O said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...SFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/08/02/useven.xml
> ...


----------



## purplealien (6 Nov 2006)

> Bamhan said:
> 
> 
> > Marion I think your comments are simply silly.
> ...


----------



## nelly (6 Nov 2006)

while i don't have children i do understand the OP's frustrations. As an Aunty (like marion) my nieces and nephews were all in school at 4.5 - 5 yrs and wreaked when they came home for the first few days. As time passed they loved it and were begging to stay on for ladybirds / football etc - in "seniors" infants. Integration into the school day does not take them 2 years surely. 
IMO it was devised  to suit childrens needs but teachers are using it - when I attended primary Junior infants were collected at 2 or waited in class playing together at whatever while their teacher did her own work so that they went home wth big sisters and brothers - why is that option now gone? where is the teacher now? nobody said it was childminding it is supervision - same as when teachers are off for sick days etc and children work away themselves drawing or whatever under the supervision of another teacher.  

For all the "Well my children come first..." there are many ways to put your children first and having a frazzled mother when you get home is often not the best way to start off your homework.

I suppose this is from one who does not see having children as a luxary that you decide can you afford and will have to work while they do in school to pay off a mortgage - house nothin fancy just a roof. Sure then again i am startin off as a bad wannabe mother


----------



## purplealien (6 Nov 2006)

> For all the "Well my children come first..." there are many ways to put your children first and having a frazzled mother when you get home is often not the best way to start off your homework.


 
Well said nelly.


----------



## DirtyH2O (6 Nov 2006)

purplealien said:


> > I'd have no problem with that - that would mean every child starts at the same age.
> >
> > If there was a set age for children to start school, it would be ideal. That would eliminate situations whereby a 6 yr old is in the same class as a 4 yr old, bored to death because he is not being mentally challenged.
> 
> ...


----------



## BlueSpud (6 Nov 2006)

Give your kids a break.  I have one in Junior infants & one in 1st class, so I am looking a 2 years of it.  That day is plenty long for the kids, regardless on whan anyone will say about their kids/neice/nephews etc.  Lord knows their day in schooling will get much longer as they go through their education.  Fight the battle regarding the synchronising the school holidays, as not synchronising is just stupid on so many levels.


----------



## extopia (6 Nov 2006)

nelly said:


> For all the "Well my children come first..." there are many ways to put your children first and having a frazzled mother when you get home is often not the best way to start off your homework.



I suppose if the source of the "frazzlement" is the kids getting off school too early an attitude adjustment is needed, in the interest of the kids?


----------



## nelly (6 Nov 2006)

extopia said:


> in the interest of the kids?



no goats here, 

as a child who waited the hour i can say it did no harm to me at all - whats the problem to leave them playing away for an hour - better than sitting infront fo a box when they get home surely.  I and many of my friends came out unscathed, it seems to me the school system was far more flexible then and this seems to be an element of the issue.


----------



## slave1 (6 Nov 2006)

I'll be in this boat soon.

Why primary schools cannot just split the difference to say 2.30.
Folks with 3+ kids doing a 2,3,4 pick up is mad, at least make the 2 and 3 pick-up the same, I don't feel a half hour would have that much of an effect.

Walk - someone somewhere is assuming paths on every road in Ireland
Cycle - please, the amount of mad drivers etc and narrow roads, not my children
Bus, with our safety record, I had a look at buses bring other children to our school, reg from the 80's and falling apart

So, up to primary 2.30
Thereafter 4, decent time break


----------



## Thirsty (6 Nov 2006)

But all that is required is some integrated and joined up thinking!  

Why is 4 hours 20 minutes considered maximum for SI and then two months later when starting 1st class they have to do 5 hours and 20 mins?  

Why do we have a situation where a group of children starting school in Sept could have an age gap of 18 months?  

Why do so many primary schools close their doors mid-afternoon and have no further use of the buildings for the rest of the day?

Why can't we have a proper school transport system?

The primary educational system as it stands doesn't meet anyone's needs, teachers, children or parents...


----------



## Thirsty (6 Nov 2006)

sorry duplicated by mistake


----------



## Vanilla (6 Nov 2006)

Slave1 has a really good point- why not split the difference to 2.30? 

I know our local community runs an after school club for national school children from age 5 to 12 which has different activities each day and includes a hot meal/ snack with qualified childcare providers- there is homework help and various sports and the children are picked up from school. I think it costs €3 per day. 

Although I don't have first hand experience of it because mine are too young, it seems like a great idea. Perhaps other communities should do the same?


----------



## nelly (6 Nov 2006)

but this is IRELAND! 
joined up thinking and that sort of thing don't happen here, now we would need to have a committee set up to look into this develop a report costing the bones of a national breakfast club for a week and revisit it bang on election year only to bury it when the votes are in.


----------



## gailey (6 Nov 2006)

My youngest son started school at five and my eldest at four  and it did my eldest no harm. I think it all depends on when their birthday falls but I do think six is way to old. Why would anyone want to deprive a child of an education until age 6? Just because I suggest changing school times to be more equal does not mean that I want the school to babysit my child all day, however I would prefer my six year old to stay in school until 3.00 as opposed to being babysat by a another child's mother every day for an hour and I do believe a six year old is well able for the extra hour.
After School Care would be brilliant but I don't think it is a common practice. I have to go to work not because I want to but because I want to keep food on the table and the wolf from the door but I don't believe we have a great childcare system in place in this country especially for older children.


----------



## Thirsty (6 Nov 2006)

There's an election coming up lads, start shouting.....


----------



## pernickety (6 Nov 2006)

for the sake of the children comments make me laugh. I know of one child who finishes at 2.30, is collected, brought home, given a quick snack and loaded into the car again to go collect her brother. That's hardly a relaxing afternoon. I would rather after school care for one hour where they're given a snack and allowed to play with their friends..... (for the sake of the children.... and the parents)


----------



## extopia (6 Nov 2006)

Hmmm. Sounds like babysitting to me.


----------



## gailey (6 Nov 2006)

Extopia, why does it sound like babysitting to you because we are talking about 2 to 3 o clock and not babysitting when we are talking about 9 to 2. Does the teacher have to take  on the role of a babysitter after 2 o clock?
It is only a change of school finishing. If you regard this as babysitting, do you also regard school as a babysitting service?


----------



## june (6 Nov 2006)

I do sympathise with the op. It's tough spending so much "Wasted" time in the car. As there's nothing you can do about times can you find a way to make it a bit easier on yourself? could older children get a bus?
Alternatively get yourself a big commuter cup,fill it with coffee, buy the paper and listen to Joe while you wait at the school till 3. Or use the hour as  activity time with senior infant: read a story or go for a stroll. It will only be for this year.

ps things could be worse. in germany a relative's kids age 7 and 9 in the same school start AND finish at different times doing about 4.5 hours each!


----------



## extopia (7 Nov 2006)

gailey said:


> do you also regard school as a babysitting service?



Well obviously not, if you read my other posts.


----------



## denise1234 (7 Nov 2006)

irishlinks said:


> If enough people make a fuss maybe something will change. If you accept it - nothing will change. Write to your TD and/or councillor , write to the Dept of Education. I agree - it is silly to have different times for Infants. Do other countries do this?


 

Would you not think if you were going to the bother of contacting the above people to complain about infants finishing times that you would be better off trying to get something more useful achieved, such as reducing class sizes (as opposed to pupil teacher ratios which takes all teachers into account, not just mainstream classteachers), more funding for speech and language therapy (currently well over a yrs waiting for a lot ofHealth Boards), more educational psychologists etc. 
Also your child is only in infants for 2 years so it is only a short term thing. Instead of moaning about school times, think of it as an extra precious hour to spend with your child before they grow up fast!


----------



## Vanilla (8 Nov 2006)

denise1234 said:


> Instead of moaning about school times, think of it as an extra precious hour to spend with your child before they grow up fast!


 
All very well if you are able to stay home and take care of your children yourself, not so easy if you have to find someone else and pay them to do it. In which case would the children not be better off in the first place in after school activities in the school?


----------



## TarfHead (8 Nov 2006)

denise1234 said:


> Would you not think if you were going to the bother of contacting the above people to complain about infants finishing times that you would be better off trying to get something more useful achieved, such as reducing class sizes (as opposed to pupil teacher ratios which takes all teachers into account, not just mainstream classteachers), more funding for speech and language therapy (currently well over a yrs waiting for a lot ofHealth Boards), more educational psychologists etc.
> Also your child is only in infants for 2 years so it is only a short term thing. Instead of moaning about school times, think of it as an extra precious hour to spend with your child before they grow up fast!


 
I agree - recent public statements of the Minister have really annoyed me.

1. Parents being more concerned about the colour of the walls on their bathrooms than their children's education.
2. Schools finishing up early on the Friday of a public holiday weekend.

My son is in senior infants. There are 4 classes in his year, each with >30 pupils.

THAT is what she should be putting her energies into, and not criticising parents who have bought homes in areas where there is no social infrastructure.


----------



## ramble (8 Nov 2006)

I have 3 children in 3 different schools with three different finishing times, luckily we live in walking distance and the older 2 can make their own way home, I can walk the third.  A good school bus system would go a long way to dealing with logistic problems for parents who are not walking distance from school.  

My biggest gripe about primary school hours is the short lunch.  The kids get 15 miuntes to eat lunch and 15 minutes outside.  15 minutes is not long enough to eat a proper lunch, especially when you are 5 and like to chat to your friends.  Parents can be tempted to respond to uneaten sandwiches by giving less nutritious snacks and convenience foods which can be eaten faster.  A longer break would allow the teachers to get a break to eat their lunch as well as giving the children time to eat and relax a bit.

I think the length of time a child can tolerate in formal education varies with the child, I would tend to err on the shorter side, but with a longer lunch break!


----------



## Molly (9 Nov 2006)

5hrs is more than sufficient time for 4 to 6 year old's to be in school. I'm in agreement with ramble on the short lunch  I've had to stop putting an apple in my daughters lunch box as she never gets enough time to eat it. everything comes back in the lunch box half eaten or nibbled, because she doesn't have enough time to eat it all. The rest of her lunch gets eaten in the car on the way home. I've spoken to the teacher on 2 occasions about this and basically she said to go with more convenient foods that can be eaten quicker.  like frubes, cheese strings ... the school are advocating rubbish processed junk as its more convenient and quicker to eat.


----------



## june (9 Nov 2006)

Do they not have two breaks? I think it is usual now. my senior infant does and has time to finish lunch.


----------



## extopia (10 Nov 2006)

Sad about the cheese strings recommendation. There used to be a policy of inspecting lunch and advising in favour of nutritious foods. Perhaps this teacher was just ignorant in this area. Hopefully.


----------



## june (10 Nov 2006)

i think it would be unwise for the teacher to comment on a child's lunch as it was probably not the child who packed it.


----------



## extopia (10 Nov 2006)

The comments are given to the parent, not the child. At the parent-teacher meeting. Sorry, should have clarified this.


----------



## fobs (10 Nov 2006)

Cheestrings are not processed food they are natural cheese and so are a good snack for kids! Processed cheese slices on the other hand would not be as good a choice.


----------



## Vanilla (11 Nov 2006)

I thought cheese strings were ok too but I was told they contain very high levels of salt therefore unsuitable for children.


----------



## liteweight (11 Nov 2006)

Vanilla said:


> I thought cheese strings were ok too but I was told they contain very high levels of salt therefore unsuitable for children.



As do most of the pre packed mini lunches one can buy for kids to take to school.

Ours haven't been to primary in a long time but when they were, the school banned all fizzy drinks, sweets and crisps. Parents were notified that if the child had these in their lunch box they would be confiscated. Basically, the message was that if you don't want your child to go hungry, provide a nutritious lunch!

The school also provided a facility, for a nominal fee, whereby younger children would be kept until older children finished school. The money went directly to the teachers who took it in turn to stay behind.


----------



## jammacjam (11 Nov 2006)

fobs said:


> Cheestrings are not processed food they are natural cheese and so are a good snack for kids! Processed cheese slices on the other hand would not be as good a choice.


 
Of course they are processed, have a read of the ingredients. awful things, give your child a slice of cheddar.


----------



## pansyflower (11 Nov 2006)

By the way ...Teachers are allowed 3 personal days a year if they undertake a summer course. A sub is santioned for this so unless your school is incompetent in gettng a replacement your child should have a teacher for that day...or at least be sent in groups to other classes...[/quote]

This is not a  question of incompetence.
The Department of Education does not pay for a sub, they expect that the children will be shared out among the other teachers!


----------



## pavlov (11 Nov 2006)

Ask any primary school teacher who has taught infants or first class what the energy levels of the children are like after lunch and you'll find your answer.
School and the education system aim to work towards best meeting the needs of the child, not the convenience of the parents.


----------



## sunlife (12 Nov 2006)

Please note that a teacher's day does not end at 2 O' clock or 3 o' clock as you may think. Teachers spend many hours preparing, planning, organising and doing paperwork after the teaching day. Just because the bell goes at a specific time that does not mean the end of the day for teachers (far from it).


----------



## pernickety (12 Nov 2006)

pavlov said:


> Ask any primary school teacher who has taught infants or first class what the energy levels of the children are like after lunch and you'll find your answer.


 
that being, that lunchtime is too short and a proper sit-down meal would be preferrable.


----------



## ramble (13 Nov 2006)

Pavlov and Sunlife, I don't think anyone was particularly getting at teachers or saying that they stopped working when the bell rings.  The extended lunch in particular would be of benefit to teachers, working all day on a 15 minute break is no joke.  I'd be happy enough for an extended lunch which doesn't affect the finishing time.  I work pretty much teachers hours (but year round) often without a lunch break and find the days when I don't take a break or eat a sandwich at my desk while working, I get a real afternoon slump.  I feel less tired if I work a full day with a proper lunch break.  I can tell how much of a lunch my kids have eaten by their mood when they come home from school.


----------

