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 professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

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

    Dismiss Notice

Children in the lowest achieving 20 per cent at age 5 are six times more likely to still be there at Key Stage 1.

Discussion in 'Early Years' started by thumbshrew, Jul 10, 2011.

  1. "Children in the lowest achieving 20 per cent at age 5 are six times more likely to still be there at Key Stage 1." - from 1.4 in the intro of the consultation document.

    I can't get my head round this one! Six times more likely than.... children who aren't there? But then why use the word 'still'? Am I being dense? Can I assume it means that one sixth of children move up, to be replaced by children who achieved a higher level in EYFS and have moved down, whereas five sixths stay in the same group? So from the lowest group of 6 children, one moves up and 5 stay in the group? Is that surprising?
    Oh no - I've just started reading the document and already it's rubbish.
    But maybe I'm just not understanding - anyone out there who can shed light?

     
  2. Doitforfree

    Doitforfree Established commenter

    My resonses to the consultation document were not very polite! There were a couple of places where I made the observation that if my documentation made as little sense then I would be slated by Ofsted!

     
  3. Being really dense now, but which document?
    The EYFS review by the Tickell dame?
     
  4. grumbleweed

    grumbleweed Established commenter

    Hyssop Puppy, the new revised framework fo the EYFS came out this week, for consultation until September (no surprise there that it once again covers the summer holiday..note to self: oh you cynic you).
    You can read and respond here
    http://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails&consultationId=1747&external=no&menu=1
    I think its important for anyone with a view, to respond, have we started a thread for debate on this yet?
     
  5. grumbleweed

    grumbleweed Established commenter

    sorry thumbie, hijacked your question.
    This is the reference that is made frequently, but looks at children across the LA/country rather than in your individual school. So you may not have any of the 'bottom' 20%' in your school, or all of your children may be in that bottom 20%. Likewise, at national level, some LAs will have more of the 'bottom 20%' than others.
    My own view is that beacuse children dont really move much when they are in that bottom 20% is why we have the early intervention stuff from Graham Allen and a larger investment in 2 year old funding plus of course the proposed checks at 2-3 years. Leaving until we have eyfsp data is too late for most children (is what they are saying). Plus of course the bigger push on home learning too. Of course that does always assume that the EYFSP is the right data to collect in the first place, so what will the messages be when we have a revised EYFSP?


     
  6. Well, my irritation with the statement had to do with its meaninglessness, the bad grammar and the lack of elucidation. To observe that the 'bottom' children remain at the 'bottom' is pretty meaningless, and do we really want them to be replaced by other children? That would suggest that the next group up was not being served well. What we should actually be aspiring to is good standards for all. There would still be a 'bottom' 20 percent, of course, but these children would not be 'dispossessed' (to naughtily use an emotive word). A proper analysis of the statistics, and a proper review of provision should be able to put this across in it's introduction, and if it did it would inspire more faith (in me, at least!). And as you say, what constitutes a 'good standard for all' is the real question. ;)
     
  7. I did look at the Tickell review when it came out in March.
    I would love to give my opinion of the revised framework so thank you for the link.
     

Share This Page