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

Foundation Stage profile scores and National Curriculum levels

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

  1. If you were to take a child who has FS points totalling 6 in every area of learning, you would possibly expect that child to be one of the 'Average' children who will go on to achieve Level 2B in the core subjects at the end of KS1. So that your SMT can show 2 levels progress across that Key Stage, you could suggest that the initial assessment could be just below 1C.You could reasonably extrapolate out for the all 9s to achieve a level 3 etc.
    Where there are differences in the number of FS points achieved in different areas,which is rather more likely, it is up to you - if for example, you believe that your child with all 9 FS points in Writing is no way going to be a level 3 writer, you can adjust the level downwards as it has been shown that lower scores in other areas like attitude / physical / creative etc have an effect. Similarly with the 'maths ' areas; there are those who say that all 4 are equal, others who will suggest that 'Calculating' and 'shape space and measure' are stronger indicators of likely achievement, so how do you start to determine what a childs FS score is to start with even before you attempt to translate to ABC?
    If your school says that F7 is 1C you can but agree, but you can suggest that other factors should be taken into account which should allow you to modify the levels as you feel appropriate with reference to other parts of the EYFSProfile and with luck this will not lead to the setting of unrealistic targets for either the teachers or the children.



     
  2. My friend told me today that in her borough an FS6 is roughly the same as 1c.
    Any thoughts on this?
    We have been told by consultants not to equate the two systems so why do SMT choose to?
     
  3. I have just read this thread and it is filling me with despair. Last year it was agreed that the FSP would do for tracking my children.
    Now, because last year was a difficult year and they have gone up to Y1 and are already proving to continue to be difficult (as in slow readers, slow in numeracy - something my school is not allowed to have) the people at the top are talking about tracking and, heaven forbid, levelling. How on earth am I meant to track and level in Reception, but like another post says, what they say goes and no argument.
    Having read this thread though I have more ammunition to try and stop this happening.
    Why don't people listen to us who teach them.

     
  4. I agree totally with you.
    I am a FS teacher and spend my time observing and weighing up evidence to give children the profile points. Things need to be seen x amount of times with the children doing this independently before the point can be highlighted and given. It is a tiring job and a very time consuming one. Then some FS professionals are expected to predict that x number of children will achieve x at KS1 tests. It is totally crazy.
    The FSP doesn't correlate and I am one of the lucky ones were the Head doesn't expect a relationship to be found but does ask about the averages and the overall outlook of the class at the end of the year. I myself am unaware of the average progress by the end of FS as each child progresses at a different rate and I was under the impression that, that was the whole idea of the EYFS.
    Does anyone know what the average expected achievement should be by the end of FS??

    Thanks
     
  5. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Two articles from the NAHT
    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.






    /* Style Definitions */
    table.MsoNormalTable
    {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
    mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
    mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
    mso-style-noshow:yes;
    mso-style-parent:"";
    mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
    mso-para-margin:0cm;
    mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:10.0pt;
    font-family:"Times New Roman";
    mso-ansi-language:#0400;
    mso-fareast-language:#0400;
    mso-bidi-language:#0400;}





    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. Its primary
    purpose is to provide Year 1 practitioners with reliable and accurate
    information about each child’s level of development. Members are reminded that
    it is NOT a mechanism for agencies such as LAs,
    SIPs and Ofsted to use as a marker for future achievement, and should therefore
    play no part in the target setting procedure, or relate directly to KS1 and KS2
    outcomes.Jan Dubiel, Programme Lead,
    EYFSP, at QCDA, has re-emphasised at a conference this month that:-





    It is nonsense to expect
    every child to make 2 points progress per term on the profile. There is no
    expectation or requirement that evidence is always recorded or
    documented-practitioners should only record what is significant. P Scales are
    designed for children accessing the National Curriculum in KS1 or beyond who
    are not attaining Level1. They are not for EYFS children. equivalence between EYFS Profile Scale Points/ scores and
    National Curriculum Levels. There is NO reliable statistical
    correlation between EYFS Profile attainment and NC KS1 at national level. Demonstrating
    progress is an issue, however, and schools do need to have a clear rationale of
    why children are where they are. Good, holistic EYFS practice, in Jan’s
    opinion, tends to manifest itself at ages 11 to 14 in terms of confidence,
    creativity and self esteem, not at KS1 or KS2 SATs level.





    The message is therefore clear. No
    outside bodies should be applying undue and inappropriate pressure on schools
    with regards to EYFSP outcomes when discussing targets for later years`
    achievements or national curriculum test results.



     
  6. I have to say, after just completing a PGCE I am soo confused. I have a job in year 1 where the school expect children to work from national curriculum from the get go and I don't know how this is possible to plan for, as there is no way of correctly gauging the levels that children work at unless you make the comparisons!
    Nobody seems to agree meaning there is a lack of clarity surrounding this, thus many y1 teachers are in panic! Those of you that are constantly arguing with 303anna about this should get off your high horses!! She, as well as the rest of us do not agree with the fact that schools are making these comparisons (ignoring guidelines) but she is asking for your advice, which is why I came to this post too.
    What should new yr1 children be expected to do on entry to their first formal year of schooling?

     
  7. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    could you ask the reception teacher for support and invite someone from the LA EYFS assessment team into discuss things?
     
  8. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Until a child enters Y1 they aren't being taught the NC therefore when they enter they will be working towards level 1 you can't assess a child on a curriculum until they have been taught it
     
  9. skellig1182

    skellig1182 Established commenter

    I would imagine that its more about ability than coverage. If a child attains 8-9 points - they are looking at being above average at the end of year 1 and 2. Well what is the expected level at the end of these years? The same would apply for 6 points and under ect. This is the way i see it. Not that the children are at that level - 9=1b ect... but what they should get to by the end of year 1. For example, if your average score is 7, I would expect that child to at least get the average level at the end of year 1 and 2. If that makes sense?
     
  10. tick/star/smileyface

    tick/star/smileyface New commenter

    Msz I cannot reiterate this enough

    "Until a child enters Y1 they aren't being taught the NC therefore when they enter they will be working towards level 1 you can't assess a child on a curriculum until they have been taught it"

    you are completely right. I was in a similar situation as a lot of people last year and having huge panics about going into year 1 - not only with a new style of curriculum to our school but also with no knowledge of the fs curriculum, transition etc. I can completely sympathise with how the people new to this are feeling. I am still trying to get my head around another transition as every cohort is different.
    I would really suggest just seeing what these children are like the when arrive in your class - a lot can happen over the summer! I also agree with what a lot of people are saying about not starting the national curriculum until the second term - and only where appropriate with the children that are there. any head that knows anything should understand that the fs levels do not equate to national curric levels as they are a whole different area of skills, development and learning. I personally plan to look at each child's fs profile sheet - we have an a3 sheet with the areas completed highlighted and I am going to plan from this - for the first term. Obviously challenging children that are exceeding the fs levels in a more national curric level way,

    I really just made it clear to my head and deputy that a lot of the children were still at a level like fs and that they would all catch up and move on in different ways - with a curriculum tailored for their needs. Once you have got the social side of things in place - which a lot struggle with - you can usually get the ball rolling a lot more.

    Sorry, I'm not sure if this is a rant, it's not meant to be. What I really want to say is, you will know your children and what they are capable of/what their needs are. Once this has been assessed, go and see your head/deputy and explain that you really don't feel that their expectations are right for those children.
     
  11. I know on a course I went on quite recently about 'carrying on the
    learning journey' from the FS to Y1 (I teach Y1/2) they said that the 2
    scales don't correlate at all. But then I think everyone's already said
    that. If I were you 303anna I'd try to get someone in from your LA to advise you on what to do. I know that may be easier said than done but it's worth a try. Oh and on the debate about P levels- I was always under the impression that year 1 children could not be put on P levels until the Summer term of year 1- I don't know whether this is right but this is what we do at my school (?!)
     
  12. What rubbish! Have you never had a child enter Year 1 as a good reader, for example? I had one enter last year reading easily at Level 2. It is perfectly normal to have children enter Y1 meeting NC attainment targets.
    In any case, how do you "assess a child on a curriculum"? That doesn't make any sense.
     
  13. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    and if a child is working at level 2 in reception they will be assessed using national curriculum levels because once they have achieved all the EYFS profile points (working beyond point 9) they are taught using the NC levels
    what do you assess a child on? KS2 curriculum? the GCSE curriculum? something they haven't yet been taught /leant? ... now that doesn't make sense
     
  14. Are most children who leave reception a 1c or a 1b in maths for example? I hope so. After all the criteria for a Ic is pretty low. If after a year in reception they can't function at such a low level then they sound like they are heading for the SEN register.
    They are being asked to count, read, write numbers to 10/20 or add one more. Good god surely that isn't beyond the capabilities of a 5 year old.
    And yes the FS scores do correlate with KS1 SATs. If you get an 8 or 9 in the maths and lit based ones you should get a 3 or 2a in sats. If you get less than 6 there are more often than not problems lay ahead.
    Now don't shout at me but could one of the reasons a number of people on here are reluctant to give nc levels to the head or deputy is that it will expose the low levels in literacy and numeracy of the children.Maybe the play-based curriculum is not be the most effective or efficient way to pass on <u>very</u> basic skills to the youngest children.
     
  15. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    most children leaving reception are below a 1C (working towards a level 1 in NC terms) point 6ish if you use the appropriate assessment document
     
  16. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    remember too that not all children will have had a year in reception some areas still have 3 intakes so the very youngest children may have had less than a term in full time education so no not SEN.
     
  17. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    I'm afraid the DfE and the QCDA disagree with you
    It is currently not possible to use EYFS profile data
    to calculate a numerical statement of &lsquo;value added&rsquo;
    during the EYFS year. This exercise would not take
    into account the child&rsquo;s individual starting point or
    the fact that each child learns at a varying rate and
    pace that may fluctuate across the year according
    to many factors. Neither is it possible to make
    predictions about children&rsquo;s future attainment
    as there is no correlation between EYFS profile
    data and key stage 1 or 2 outcomes or national
    curriculum levels.


    http://www.qcda.gov.uk/resources/assets/Factsheet_FSP_QA_v6aWO.pdf



    and from the unions



    Normal
    0


    false
    false
    false







    MicrosoftInternetExplorer4








    /* Style Definitions */
    table.MsoNormalTable
    {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
    mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
    mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
    mso-style-noshow:yes;
    mso-style-parent:"";
    mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
    mso-para-margin:0cm;
    mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:10.0pt;
    font-family:"Times New Roman";
    mso-ansi-language:#0400;
    mso-fareast-language:#0400;
    mso-bidi-language:#0400;}



    Some NUT members have reported that
    they have been expected to use data from the Profile for value-added purposes
    or to predict children&rsquo;s future performance. The &ldquo;Early Years Foundation Stage Profile
    Handbook&rdquo;
    says &ldquo;EYFS profile scale points and cumulative point scores are statutory
    assessments that exists in their own right. They are not equivalent to any
    national curriculum levels or sub-levels and no such comparison should be
    made.&rdquo;


    and the NAHT


    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.



    &bull; 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.




    &bull; The FSP is more about assessment for learning than average points scores.



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



    &bull; There is no need to record everything and no supplementary assessments are required.



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



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




    &bull; NAA are allocating resources and advice to the most
    &ldquo;inconsistent&rdquo;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 &ldquo;drive up&rdquo; standards.



    &bull; 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).



    &bull; Some scale points, known as &ldquo;super scale points&rdquo;, 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 &ldquo;super scale points&rdquo;) seem to
    indicate that without them, a child is unlikely to achieve more than 2c
    at KS1.



    &bull; 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.

     
  18. MSZ rather than endlessly cutting and pasting official policies and viewpoints maybe you could just give a brief a resume or indeed your own opinion.

    8 and 9 do translate usually to higher level 2 and level 3 (no matter what the government says). It makes sense that they do. If a child is going into year 1 with higher level 1 or lower level 2 if they don't achieve higher 2 or a 3 then their progress in KS1 has been very poor.
     
  19. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Sorry MissFit I wasn't aware you knew better than the people who produced the profile thank you for correcting me.
    I've used the profile since it was introduced (the first group of children have just completed GCSE exams) and can say that high profile scores do not automatically mean a child will do well in Ks1 or KS2 tests based on 11 years of experience because as the National assessment authority and QCA etc point out there is no direct correlation between the two assessment systems.
    It's like me asking you to measure how big the table is measured in litres sorry different scales for different purposes.
    profile points 4-8 do NOT translate to NC levels point 9 can indicate a child is working withing level 1 depending on the actual point as the 13 areas vary greatly
    as the government and union guidance states achieving an average score on the profile does not guarantee an average result in KS1
     
  20. They do correlate. Why wouldn't they. Any child getting 9s in the maths areas will 90% be a level 3. Something has gone wrong if they are not. I reiterate that the reluctance of some to show the attainment of reception children at the end of the FS in NC levels is due to them not wanting to flag up the poor progress they have made (due to the over-emphasis on child-led 'learning').
     

Share This Page