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

Foundation Stage profile scores and National Curriculum levels

Discussion in 'Primary' started by 303anna, Sep 11, 2009.

  1. Help needed!
    Does anyone have any idea of roughly what FS9 FS8 FS7 equate to on National Curriculum levels? Is FS9 roughly 1a
    FS8 1b
    FS7 1c ??
    I know that you are not supposed to equate the two systems but my school does unfortunately.
    Any help and advice on this issue gratefully received.


     
  2. According to the tracking grids my school use 6 or 7 is 1c and 8 or 9 is 1b.
     
  3. As you rightly say its not advisable to do so but as an ISP school/ school causing concern and in an OFSTED category we do (unofficially)
    This is what we use....
    FSP - Yr1 - Yr2
    0 p6 p8
    1 p7 1c
    2 p8 2b
    3 1c 1a
    4 1b 2c
    5 1b 2c
    6 1a 2b
    7 2c 2a
    8 2b 3c
    8.5+ 2a 3b
    NB: The evidence for FSP scores progression to KS1 levels is not strong. This table must be used with caution.
     
  4. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    There is no correlation between EYFSP scores and NC levels
    http://www.aaia.org.uk/pdf/Publications/FAQs%20-%20assessing%20children%27s%20attainment%20in%20the%20foundation%20stage.pdfP6
    What is the relationship between Foundation Stage Profile assessments and
    National Curriculum levels?
    In an attempt to show progression from the foundation stage into key stage 1, some
    published materials relate Profile scores to National Curriculum levels. Such attempts
    often utilise the fact that the maximum score on a Profile scale is 9 and level 1 in the
    National Curriculum point score system also has a value of 9. However, this is entirely
    coincidental. The first is a raw score obtained directly from assessments of children for
    the Profile, while the other is a point score value from a scale that is essentially arbitrary
    (level 1 could equally well have a value of 12 with level 2 having a value of 18, etc.).
    The position of the National Assessment Agency is made clear in the following statement:
    Some LAs and commercial companies have produced materials that attempt to equate FSP
    scale points to national curriculum (NC) sub-levels ....... Any equation of FSP scales or scale
    point scores to NC levels or invented sub-levels is a spurious and ultimately inaccurate
    exercise.
    Implementation and moderation of foundation stage profile 2006
    National Assessment Agency (NAA) Annual Monitoring Report 2006 (QCA/06/2959)
    Clearly there will be a relationship between the assessment outcomes from the two
    systems and the higher that children's assessments are on the Profile the more likely they
    are to have higher outcomes at the end of key stage 1. However, this does not mean that
    there is any equivalence between scores derived from the two assessment systems.
    National Curriculum levels cannot be attributed to children in the foundation stage when
    they have not been taught to the National Curriculum programmes of study.
     
  5. Thank you for the above comment. It was helpful to read.
    I am fully aware there is no correlation between the two systems. As I say my school insists on converting the FS scores into NC levels when they come into my class. It is not my decision.
    At present FS 9 is down as a 1a. That is way too high for the standard that I can see from their work.
    Looking at the above comments it seems FS 9 is actually a 1c / 1b. This seems far more realistic.
    Does anyone else out there have this problem at the moment or can offer me any more advice?

     
  6. This is a definite no no. It's like comparing apples with oranges - they are two different assessment systems and they do not correlate. The best I can suggest is that you level children after half a term in year 1. Some will still working from a EYFS curriculum. For those children achieving 6/7/8 on the profile, it may be possible that for some aspects of their work a NC level will be appropriate. Bear in mind that some profile points ie number/labels, are 'easier' that those, for example, in writing. Children achieving 9 on the profile are achieving significantly and consistently above expectations for Foundation Stage. These children are often G and T, and would be expected to achieve a sound level 3 at KS1. If you assume a 2 sub level a year progress, they should be working at a good 2b at the end of year 1, and therefore you would expect them at top 1/low 2 in year 1 term1.
     
  7. I had a similar problem last year as a lot of the children had FS8 for K&U so had predicted scores of 2b at the end of year 1 (we use the same system as Nutmeg). There was no way I was going to give a year 1 child a 2b unless they were outstanding and I had a lot of evidence to support this. As a result a lot of my children (on paper) looked as though they hadn't made the expected progress.
     
  8. This is why you do not correlate the two scales!!
    With reference:
    Most children are expected to achieve their early learning goals. It said so in the old FS guidance and still says so now. It doesn't say most children are expected to achieve 6 points. The points are not hierarchical - they are (supposedly) on a par, just looking at different aspects
    And most children are expected to achieve a 2b at the end of KS1.
    There is a big difference in achieving point 9 in the EYFSP.This is the child who is 'outstanding'.
    'Scale point 9
    Describes the attainment of a child who has achieved scale points 1–8 and
    developed further, working consistently beyond early learning goals. Scale point 9
    will be attained by children who have significant abilities or experiences in an area of
    learning.' (EYFS Profile Handbook)

    And despite moderation, my personal view of the profile ponts system is that it is crude non age related ranking within the context of an individual class.

     
  9. I don't but the Head and LA do [​IMG]
     
  10. Let's all jump up and down and shout a bit louder. The OFSTED man listened!
     
  11. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Direct your head to his own union advice [​IMG]
    Foundation Stage Profile and Target Setting
    The Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) is a way of summing up each child`s development and learning achievement at the end of the Foundation Stage. It is based on ongoing observation and assessments in all 6 areas of learning and development. Its primary purpose is to provide Year I practitioners with reliable and accurate information about each child`s level of development at the end of the foundation stage. It is manifestly not a mechanism for outside bodies (LAs, SIPs, Ofsted) to use as a stick to berate a school`s performance or target setting procedures. It is therefore the use to which some outside bodies use such recorded information that is challenged.
    A colleague from the NAA (National Assessment Agency) recently gave a presentation to NAHT Primary Committee. In it, he outlined some principles and the results so far of his research into the scale points on the Foundation Stage Profile. This is a synopsis of the main points he made.

    • Point scores are levels of achievement and not the points in the profile, i.e. a score of 6 does not mean profile 6, it means point 3, plus 3 aspects achieved of sections 4-8. Children with the same points score will therefore probably have a different level of achievement.

    • The FSP is more about assessment for learning than average points scores.

    • Judgement for FSP should be based on at least 80% coming from observation and knowledge of the child.

    • There is no need to record everything and no supplementary assessments are required.

    • Because of the nature of some of the scale points, confusion can exist when LAs/SIPS/Ofsted are interpreting FSP data.

    • There is ongoing research into the relationship between FSP and KS1 outcomes, and it would appear that some of the links are spurious.

    • NAA are allocating resources and advice to the most "inconsistent"LAs,i.e.those LAs whose knowledge of, and experience in, FSP progression is patchy. In other words, where LAs are using the data incorrectly in an attempt to "drive up" standards.

    • The FSP is for organising children`s learning, not target setting.The forthcoming NAA Report will recommend training for all stakeholders, particularly in the inappropriate use of profile data. There will also be inter-LA moderation conferences. (NAHT has asked for schools to be included in these).

    • Some scale points, known as "super scale points", with research, appear to have a greater link to KS1 outcomes than others, particularly those that involve creativity, thinking and applying, rather than rote learning. Some specific scale points (the "super scale points") seem to indicate that without them, a child is unlikely to achieve more than 2c at KS1.

    • It is therefore not enough to say that the acquisition of 6 scale points is indicative as an acceptable basis for the next stage; it depends upon the particular scale points achieved.

    As this is still at a research stage, and is not yet fully in the public domain, it may be prudent to move ahead with caution. However, when this is considered in terms of LA pressure and SIPs visits, as well as Ofsted, the message coming out is that none of these outside bodies should be applying undue pressure on schools with regards to FSP outcomes when discussing targets for later years` achievements. Any correlation it would appear, is currently insecure.


    I Foster

    February 2008











    <address><img src="/EasySiteWeb/EasySite/StyleData/NAHT_General/images/SectorAnimationGif.gif"
    width="330" height="82" alt="Animated Banner" /></address>






    THE EARLY YE ARS FOUNDATION STAGE PROFILE - NUT ADVICE TO MEMBERS IN ENGLAND OCTOBER 2008
    Introduction
    This document provides up-dated professional advice and guidance to members who work in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). The Early Years Foundation Stage Profile was launched in September 2008 and replaces the Foundation Stage Profile, which teachers have been using since 2003. The two documents are, however, extremely similar and it is likely that the confusion about statutory requirements relating to the Foundation Stage Profile which NUT members have reported will continue with the introduction of the new Early Years Foundation Stage Profile in some schools and local authorities.
    This document sets out the requirements on teachers and schools relating to the Profile and suggests ways in which workload arising from it could be reduced.
    The guidelines contained within this leaflet are issued as a set of instructions that, if followed, will reduce or remove workload burdens associated with the Profile. They are written in such a way as not to leave members feeling isolated, nor feeling constrained against using their professional judgements.
    Use of the guidelines will support, not hinder, members in their professional work. Members will exercise their professional judgement in deciding whether to draw on the protection afforded by the NUT. Where members consider that carrying out any aspect of the guidelines would, in fact, increase pressure on them, then they should continue to operate according to their professional judgement.
    The National Union of Teachers will continue to represent members who face any excessive workload demands arising from the Profile. The NUT regional office should be informed immediately if members believe that they are subject to excessive demands relating to the Profile.
    The NUT's advice reflects the recommendations included in the National Assessment Agency's "Implementation and Moderation of Foundation Stage Profile Assessment 2007: Annual Monitoring Report" and "Early Years Foundation Stage Profile Handbook" from which all quotes contained in this leaflet have been taken.

     
  12. Thanks guys for all the replies.
    I know the two systems do not correlate. I know that you should not use NC levels until at least the autumn half term.
    But my school insists that I have to give them NC levels at the start of Year 1 and I have no say in that decision. At the moment it is listed that FS9 is 1a / FS7 = 1b / FS6 = 1c. This seems incorrect to me.
    So is it right to conclude that ROUGHLY
    FS 9 = 1c and 1b for outstanding pupils?
    FS 8 = 1c?
    FS 7 and downwards represents P levels?
    Please do not write back saying that I you cannot do this as my school is insisting that I do so that will not help me in any way.
    Any help on the above is appreciated.
     
  13. I don't understand how you are going to plevel children when the scores do not have to occur in order from 4-8.
     
  14. This is something I feel very strongly about-my HT uses them to make a prediction and I also make my ownOurs are higher than the ones mentioned above-8 in MD overall predicts a 2b! In Year 1! They take the ***. This year's FS scores are even higher but the children are much lower than last year so I have a fight on my hands. (Which I am determined to win!)
     
  15. emilystrange

    emilystrange Star commenter

    Sorry, but you need to fight this, and get your LEA EY advisor in if necessary. There is no point doing something which is pointless and bases stats on spurious information.
     
  16. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    No I'm afraid not
    A profile point score of 4-8 is below a level 1 c
    and profile point 9 can equate to working within (but not a full level ) anywhere between 1c and 2c depending on exactly which area it is.
     
  17. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    The P Scales and the early learning goals have been written for different purposes and have been constructed in different ways.
    * The early learning goals specify expectations for children's progression by the end of the Foundation Stage, while the P Scales were written for use with children of National Curriculum age who are working towards level 1 or who are working within levels 1 or 2 of the National Curriculum for extended periods of time. They were written primarily for supporting target setting in the context of the National Curriculum.
    * The early learning goals themselves (and consequently items 4-8 in any scale) are not necessarily hierarchical and do not necessarily reflect progression.
    For these reasons P scales should not be used in the Early Years Foundation Stage.
    P Scales shouldn't be used for children whodon't have SEN even though they may be working below NC1
    http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/11930/071009_P-Scales_Letter_to_Schools%5B1%5D.pdf
     
  18. Dear Msz
    Thanks for your reply.
    A profile point score of 4-8 being below a 1c seems correct to me. For example the majority of my children can just about write their first name - but have no idea how to write a sentence and sound out words. Yet on their assessment sheet they are listed as being 1b / 1c writers.
    Virtually all of my children are starting on Oxford Reading Tree books stage 1/2 as little reading was done last year. I have only one reading stage 3 books. Yet on the assessment sheet I have 6 listed as 1a readers and the majority as 1b readers.
    Surely the FS points and NC levels in my school are completely wrong. What you are saying sounds correct to me. How did your school arrive at the above grading system?
    How do I approach getting what is written changed?
     
  19. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    The EYFS profile handbook p26
    saysEYFS profile scale points and accumulative scale point scores are statutory assessments in their own right. They are not equivalent to any national curriculum levels or sub-levels and no such equation should be made.

    Scale
    points
    1-3
    describe the attainment of a child who is still progressing towards the early learning goals.

    Scale
    points
    4-8
    describe the attainment of a child in the context of the early learning goals. They are not hierarchical or linear, indeed some scale points require ongoing assessment over time and a child may achieve them in any order.

    Scale
    point 9
    describes the attainment of a child who has achieved scale points 1-8 and developed further, working consistently beyond early learning goals. This will be attained by children who have significant abilities in an area of learning. Its purpose is to identify these abilities to year 1
    teachers and ensure that these children's specific development and learning needs will be met.
    My school doesn't attempt to convert profile points to NC levels

    Some of my children left my reception class last year reading stage 9 books (purple and gold bandings) and were awarded scale point 9 in reading.
    Some were able to correctly spell over half the words in the KS1 SAT test and were awarded scale point 9 for Linking Letters to Sounds
     
  20. It is good that your school does not convert the points to levels.
    However my school does and SMT insist on it. I have no say in that matter.
    What should I do when they are saying FS9 is 1a and FS8 is 1b and FS7 is 1c?
    How do I approach getting it changed or at least the grades lowered? Any advice?
     

Share This Page