1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Assessment have I got it right?

Discussion in 'Primary' started by andycw, Nov 9, 2017.

  1. andycw

    andycw New commenter

    We are making a bold move and now stating that a child the was summative assessed as Year 2 ARE begins Year 3 as Year 3 ARE. This way the child in question will be expected to be working at the expected Year 3 standard for the objectives they cover based on prior attainment in the previous year and as such can be formatively and summative described as Year 3 ARE at any given point. At the end of Year 3 we are then able to make a formal summative statement that they have met all the Year 3 ARE standard.

    To show progress we simply use our formative assessments over time (percentages etc.) and we say good progress is a child that continues to meet the ARE (based on their starting point). Better progress is obviously a child that moves over the boundaries. We can also show this with the scaled score and summative test scaled scores at the end of each year.

    I think our system is very simple and effective...

    Any thoughts guys???
  2. Envyemerald

    Envyemerald New commenter

    We do something similar but in a recent inspection we were told that maintaining ARE is expected progress. Good progress is made when achieving a higher scaled score/moving to ARE+.
    andycw likes this.
  3. gerdmuller

    gerdmuller New commenter

    Makes sense to me and sounds similar to my school.

    Some people seem to have over-complicated things and have mongrel systems with old sub-level style levels of progress, etc. I can't see why. Our LA trackers fit in well with our system. Know where they are, so you can plan support, then judge any progress/impact.

    I think that when you pitch it at ARE at the beginning it makes sense. If you speak to Y6 teachers, a lot will have tales of kids who have consistently been behind, yet when they go whole class same pitch before the tests, those kids suddenly come on leaps and bounds.

    I'd be interested to see how other people are explaining the new system to outside agencies. Our parents seem to have understood it easily, but a couple of years in we are still having to explain to social workers, LAC support etc. at SEN meetings that we simply can't put arbitrary performance measures on kids, and that if they're below expectations at the end of Y3, they don't simply plough on with that curriculum until they're in Y6, or make a sudden leap to exceeding just because PP money has been added to the pot.
    andycw likes this.
  4. carriecat10

    carriecat10 Established commenter Community helper

    Maybe the language could be tweaked slightly to reflect where the children are currently - perhaps 'on-track' to achieve Y3 ARE would be more appropriate?
    andycw likes this.
  5. andycw

    andycw New commenter

    Thanks everyone - much appreciated :)
  6. caterpillartobutterfly

    caterpillartobutterfly Star commenter

    Is this really a 'bold move'?
    Surely it is common sense and utterly normal?
    If the child left year 2 at ARE, then obviously they arrive in year 3 at ARE unless something incredibly terrible happened over the summer holiday. Throughout the year they continue to be at the level expected for their age at that point in the year.

    The only difference should be that, as @Envyemerald has said, this is expected progress.
  7. Lalad

    Lalad Star commenter

    The problems come when some children are assessed at the end of Yr 2 as at ARE and it then becomes abundantly clear within a few days of starting Yr 3 that they are not at ARE.
    Piscean1 and CarrieV like this.

Share This Page