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

How much 'evidence'?

Discussion in 'Early Years' started by Skippy22, Mar 15, 2011.

  1. I totally agree with you! Most of this ridiculous advice is given out by people who have not been in a classroom for years! You do need observations but you also have to teach. I keep photographs of significant things the children have done in a learning journey file and update them weekly but actually then planning next steps for 30 individuals is very difficult. It is easier to plan for groups. We all have groups of children who are at very similar stages, with the odd extreme either end. That is more realstic. I too find moderation meetings drive me nuts as some super teacher explains to everyone about their wonderful evidence gathering system, which sounds awesome until you discover they 11 children in their class and a full-time TA. when lots of us are struggling on with 30 children and 1 TA!!! I think I need to go to bed!!
  2. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    Well, will it matter if the score is reliable or not? As a parent, I find this a vexed question, and you will probably all jump on me saying "how ridiculous".
    I don't think there is such a thing as a reliable FYSP score. There might be one that you have the evidence for, but that doesn't make it reliable, as it perhaps could be higher if you had some more evidence. There might be a score that in the way you interpret the criteria is accurate relative to all the other children in your classroom - but maybe not nationally.
    And no, it does not matter one jot or tittle until someone goes and uses it to extrapolate what this child should achieve at KS1, and KS2, and puts little child in groups with "appropriately differentiated" learning objectives and curriculum based on the FS scores at the start of Year 1. Now you are going to tell me that this won't happen, and if it does, the groups will soon be adjusted, and every child has equality of opportunity and a chance to catch up. But I am not entirely reassured that these arguments are true in all schools, for all pupils.
    So if you work in a school like that and you are going to get your scores wrong, go on the high side. Your colleagues in KS1 and KS2 will curse you as you will mess up their value added big time. But again what does that matter, it's just another number. And high aspirations and expectations generally lead to higher attainment, so it's better than underestimating their score.
    Just my crazy view anyhow.

  3. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    I understand you work in secondary education but can you honestly say that the results of KS2 assessment has any bearing on what happens in KS3 classes?
    The official stance is
    <h5> 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. <u>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.
  4. inky

    inky Lead commenter

    We know this, Msz, but so many teachers are being bullied into believing otherwise.
  5. inky

    inky Lead commenter

    And so many parents are being misled - or misleading themslees - nto believing that the opposite is true.

  6. inky

    inky Lead commenter

  7. I have just returned from a moderation meeting and there she was Super teacher with 10 children and her Learning journeys were amazing. i have a class of 32 soon to be 34 with 25 reception and 9 year 1 children. What chance do I have? I do my best ..... but compared to teachers with 10 pupils my learning journeys must look pretty feeble.
    Does anyone have a good site with exemplars on ? I am particularly interested in SP 9 wriitng. At the moderation meeting someone said that a child has to be 'a year ahead' to get this point. Are the exemplars in the profile book reasonable ? They must be level 2 !!
  8. inky

    inky Lead commenter

    I do hope you told the Super Teacher that you envied her small class size. Actually, I think these things should be thrashed out at moderation meetings. After all, we're with our peers and shouldnt be in competition. Moderation meetings could be a great starting point for dissent...
  9. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

  10. As I have posted somewhere before (much to the dismay of many on here), as a Year 1 teacher, the profile and the mountains of files, photographs, charts, data and post-its that generally arrive with it are useless to me. If the profile's main purpose is to inform the Year 1 teacher then it is not fit for purpose. If the general aim of your assessments is to inform the year 1 teacher, why not ask the Y! teacher what they want you to tell them?
  11. inky

    inky Lead commenter

    The strange thing is that in our one-form-entry school we all know all the children anyway. We TALK to each other.
  12. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    something that isn't given the status it should in schools
  13. absolutely
  14. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    Hi Inky and Msz, no sorry I think my post must not have been clear. I was not saying that a foundation stage profile score had any bearing on a KS1 or KS2 KS3 KS4 KS5 A level or degree score. There is no correlation is there? And I really don't understand why there are schools who treat it as though it does have some meaning.
    What I was saying was that some schools (I know yours don't from the jist of what I remember from your other discussions) do use the profile score as a predictor and for grouping etc from start of Year 1. They use it to equate to NC levels at the start of Year 1 and then to project at average progress of 2 sub-levels per year. I know schools that do this. They group children from the beginning of year 1 based on the foundation scores, and these groups work at a pace and with material differentiated according to which group the child fell into.
    So although the score should have no direct correlation with later school achievement, the tracking and differentation and all of that, when handled in a certain way, can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, particularly for children who get no help at home in a school where there are other parents secretly doing stuff at home.
    I know you might think this is ridiculous, but these schools do exist!! It sounds from the things you say that you are in very sensibly run schools?
  15. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    No mystery10 the score has no correlation with NC levels at any time (not just in the future) so it is impossible to equate the two as they measure different things.

    There are no direct equivalences between EYFSP scale points and APP guidelines
  16. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    This is from the Head teachers union NAHT
    Foundation Stage Profile and Target Setting

    Issued as BR 17/09

    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:-

    • <li class="MsoNormal">It is nonsense to expect every child to make 2 points progress per term on the profile. <li class="MsoNormal">There is no expectation or requirement that
      evidence is always recorded or documented-practitioners should only
      record what is significant. <li class="MsoNormal">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. <li class="MsoNormal"><u>There is NO equivalence between EYFS Profile Scale Points/ scores and National Curriculum Levels. </u><li class="MsoNormal">There is NO reliable statistical correlation between EYFS Profile attainment and NC KS1 at national level. <li class="MsoNormal">Demonstrating progress is an issue, however, and schools do need to have a clear rationale of why children are where they are. <li class="MsoNormal">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.

  17. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    Sorry I must have been unclear again. I was saying there is no correlation between FS profile points and later achievement, but despite this some schools do incorrectly use it that way. I was saying that if it was used, incorrectly, like this, it then could have an indirect effect as in some schools it could affect the expectations, groupings and differentiated work of a child from early on in Year 1. Sorry if I am still unclear.

  18. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    The final bullet point about the benefits of good EYFS practice maybe manifesting at age 11-14 is interesting, but I would imagine impossible to prove.
    And there would be manifestations of extremely bad practice in the early years which would show much earlier.
  19. mystery10

    mystery10 Occasional commenter

    I also think that KS2 results can be and is used incorrectly in some secondary schools. For example, some set pupils in maths in year 7 onwards based on KS2 test results. For numerous different reasons the KS2 result may not be a good indicator of the child's mathematical ability. Once in the wrong set (and I'm talking in general about being in too low a set) it is hard to break out of it in some schools for numerous different reasons e.g. the higher set is full, you haven't covered the work needed to manage in the set above, lack of confidence, poor behaviour in a lower set leading to slower progress etc etc.
  20. Leapyearbaby64

    Leapyearbaby64 New commenter

    But it's supposed to "inform" Y1 teachers. And I think you can use it for that. Y1 teachers know that maturity has a huge effect going into their year and in my experience there is massive flexibility in groupings all through primary school. I'm fairly sure my "top" group are going to be top through primary school. I have a couple of children who at the moment need massive support for phonics and writing, but based on their maths and creative skills, I'd guess they would be likely to do well later on in school.

Share This Page