AIBU to be pissed off at child's nursery?

[Ka2017]

I received my 2 and a half year olds report this week and was surprised by what I received.
I am very familiar with the EYFS working in a nursery within a school.
They have used 'emerging' 'developing' and 'secure' for each area. My son is very good physically and as expected got secure in the relevant age bands for the areas in physical development. However I was surprised to see that in all the other areas he is has been marked down as developing even in age bands as young as birth-11 months. He is in no way at this level, I am under no illusion that he is gifted and talented but he is where he should be for his age. When I questioned this with his key worker and then the manager I was told that unless they see children doing something 3 times they cannot mark them as secure in an area. They then said that my son is where he should be and they haven't got any concerns, they just haven't got the evidence.
AIBU to feel that more of an effort should be made (set up adult initiated activities) to gauge a proper understanding of his development?
AIBU to believe that this report is a bit half arsed and pointless?
It is a real injustice to my son and my argument is, how can I see areas he may be struggling in and see where I can support him if he is marked down as developing in birth- 11 months in all areas bar physical development (Where they have lots of evidence and observations).
To me if a child in my care was developing in these areas at an age band much lower, I would first make sure that I am enabling scenarios where I can see if they need extra support. I made the point that the report reflects a child that is SEN or one that refuses to join in with anything but they then talked about the evidence again and that they know he isn't at that level.
I am fully aware of time constraints and pressures in environments like this, particularly working in one, but I would never give someone such an unfair and inaccurate report. If eveidence was missing I would take time out to make sure i have it.
How can I and future key workers see where my son needs extra support?

He has been at the nursery 8 months doing 1 and a half days. Also the nursery is an outstanding setting.

Thank you- I was starting to think I am overreacting and being a bit precious. I agree- I would never send home an inaccurate report. It doesn't take much to get evidence- there should be planned activities for this. I also don't agree with 'well he's only there 1 and a half days so doesn't deserve a proper report'.

For what it’s worth I totally agree with your concerns. It’s a report that suggests that the staff don’t know your child and aren’t actually doing any work to get to know your child, as well as them having a poor understanding of good practice and no common sense. I’d be seriously pissed off.

Thank you- completely my concern. It has absolutely nothing with him not having all his boxes marked green.

Honestly, you should be more outraged that the government insist nursery assess two year olds like this. If your son were at home, you wouldn't. When he goes to school, They will ignore completely the transition information the nursery provide. It is a ridiculous paper snuggling exercise. My eldest went to nursery and I wanted them to focus on encouraging social interaction, fun and play, turn taking and manners. We put too much importance on formal learning under 5 in this country and it is to our children's detriment. I say this as a head of year and teacher of 12 years. Ignore the report, you know it is incorrect. Focus instead on how happy your child is within the setting.

Shuffling not snuggling

Nursery is doing it wrong. And they're doing it wrong wrongly.

They should either be grading your child 'best fit' using their professional judgement, or they should be putting something in place to help a child who's nowhere near where they should be. To grade them low and then do nothing is double wrong.

I think Insancerre has it - if they haven’t assessed him it would be better to have a ‘not yet assessed’ box rather than an assumption. As a nursery worker you feel aggrieved they’re being shoddy. YANBU at all. I’d speak to the room manager and say it’s not an accurate reflection of what he can/can’t do.

It is frustrating and a little annoying that the report is completed on this basis, but if that is procedure then that is what they will do. Prepare yourself for a good few years of this and just use your own judgement.

I used to get really riled when I received quarterly reports from my dds high school showing her progress as below expected on a lot of subjects. When I questioned it that no one had mentioned this (and had previous glowing reports at parents evenings) I was told it was because some teachers hadn't updated the system or last assessment was a year a go or whatever. I asked that they didn't send the report to me as I found it so irritating but no 'sorry can't do that, it's a requirement to keep parents updated with progress' arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

The two year old progress check was introduced to identify children who are at risk of being behind the expected development for their age. This is because research has shown that if this addressed before three a child has a much better chance of catching up and it impacts on their future outcomes.
The EYFS makes it clear that judgements should be a ‘best fit’ based on observations and practitioner knowledge of the child. The Progress check should be completed with the parent and include their views of the child’s development.
It worries me that a nursery still is unaware of the purpose of the check or how to complete it. As other posters have said I would be concerned that the staff are not secure with their knowledge of the children and how to plan to support them.
The age band a two year old should fall in is either 22-36 months or 30-50 months depending on their chronological age at the time of the check. The emerging, developing and secure statements reflect where the child is within the band. It would be developmentally appropriate for a young two year old (24 months) to be emerging in the 22-36 month band as this covers just before 2 until 3 years old.
I hope that all makes sense. I’ve only just woken up!

If he is spending more time with you than at nursery at the moment than you are in a better position to assess him. Look at the list and if you are comfortable that he cn do the things, ignore the mark. If he is at the lower level, you are in a better position to identify problems.

My son is 7 and in school and the school meet with me to talk about what works well at home (he suffers from anxiety) and they take their cues from us as we spend more time with him and know him better.

It is better that they be honest about what they have actually witnessed than to just assume he can do it so. Then problems may not get identified.

I get what you mean, the report is meaningless. Either they should assess appropriately or state that they do not produce reports for children who attend less than say 2 and a half days a week as there is insufficient time to assess.

Op, have the nursery done. 2 year check yet?

It doesn't matter one bit

Even with pfb I think I knew this about nursery reports. With dc2 it's hardly looked at.

You know your child best! Just ask where they think he needs support if you want to.

Penggggwn Secondary education doesn’t bear any resemblance to the EYFS. Even a KS1 or 2 teacher will effectively start from scratch in the EYFS, and I know because I have done it. If there are areas of learning that they have seen so little of that they cannot make a judgement on them, they should be creating opportunities for the child to show what they can do and they absolutely should be asking for and valuing parental input. Parents are partners in the EYFS.

I do see your point OP but to be fair the nursery have explained they don't really have any actual concerns, they just haven't been able to evidence it as they need to. It's a bit annoying I grant you, but I wouldn't give it too much headspace. I think assessing very young kids is a bit mad anyway. I always remember DD1 didn't do very well in her 1 year check because she wasn't interested in completing half the things as she was more interested in playing with a piece of string. However I knew she was actually able to do a lot of these things but because it wasn't 'evidenced' the HV wouldn't tick it off. I realised then that a lot of the time these assessments on young children are just a waste of time.

We've also had similar reports from nursery where they've noted they haven't seen her do something but I have, so I just don't worry too much. I do think that they're mainly a tick box exercise. I would say though, that I was having concerns about her language development, and the nursery also raised with me that they had similar concerns (in person, not on silly 'tick box' form). Anyway, long story short she has some hearing issues that are probably impacting on her language development. But, my point is that I'm confident if your nursery have any real concerns about your DS I'm sure they will raise it with you, but I wouldn't worry too much about the tick sheets. I think they're mainly just to please OFSTED.

You know your own child.....don't rely on some stupid nursery 'report' to tell you what you KNOW your child can/not do.

OP you are right that this illustrates the assessment system they use is flawed, regardless of any emotional reactions it causes parents.

Schools used to use the '3 times' rule for secure skills but that was years ago before proper observations were valued.

There is a small chance they are strategically ranking children low for data purposes. They can then place them higher on the next assessment and show maximum progress.

Sadly this is how a lot of schools show 'value added' and now nurseries are inspected on how much progress children make they may play this game too.

Whatever the reason, you are right that this report should flag up a need for an intervention such as a support plan.

If they don't use their own (flawed) data they are failing children.

Well, if they have assessed him as being behind his developmental age in a number of areas that is very concerning. Ask his key worker / manager for a meeting to discuss the interventions / referrals they are planning to address his needs. Perhaps that may concentrate their minds on producing a more accurate assessment.

My son went to school nursery for 3 hours a week last year. (He was also at a private nursery but the school one gave him a chance to meet a few kids / get used to the school session.) I wasn’t expecting much from the report (3 hours a week, term time only with 20 odd other kids - Imwas amazed they knew his name!) but actually it was spot on. They had his levels just right and they also had his personality just right. I was really impressed.

Re: 0-11 month targets - they should have been ticked off within hours of him arriving. What you learn in the first year is the building blocks for everything.

So - for example there is probably one about combining vowel sounds and consonants -

“ Fred - do you want a biscuit or a piece of fruit”
“Biccie!” (That’s one)

“Here you go - can you say thank you”
“Thank you” (Two)

“Fred do you like Paw Patrol best or Peppa Pig”
“Peppa,” ( Three - sorted!)

Thank you for all your messages and those that can see where I am coming from. I perhaps am worried that my child is being overlooked and that I am trusting people to look after my child that really don't know him that well. There has been no 2 year check yet.

Thank you- that's what I said. The report really does resemble a child with SEN. As a teacher myself that would ring big alarm bells- we need to intervene, we need to let parents aware of any concerns, we need to spend a bit of time getting to know the child and see what they can/can't do. If there are concerns I should have been made aware, if there aren't any concerns I should have received a report that represents that. I would be embarrassed to give a parent a report and then say we haven't got any evidence. Activities should be planned to see what children can do. We plan for the whole class and individual children, regardless of how long they are in the setting for.