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

Moderating from FS to KS1

Discussion in 'Primary' started by impulce, May 30, 2012.

  1. I just wondered how others ensure moderation when children enter Y1 from F2.
    I know the two curriculums are not meant to be compared, but at the end of the day if children come out of F2 as an able cohort, the expectation is that they do well at the end of KS1 and the end of KS2 as well, so comparisons need to be made whilst this flippin' expectation is still in place!
    We are having discussions at the moment as our FS results are always high, but when we baseline them at beginning of Y1 they don't look anywhere near as good on paper. We have children coming to us with 8s on the profile but reading books levelled as 'working towards NC'.
    It's very hard to challenge without causing aggravation and looking like we are accusing FS of bumping their levels - I'm not, I know the profile and its expectations are different.
    I just wondered how others manage this issue, as it surely isn't just us?
     
  2. I just wondered how others ensure moderation when children enter Y1 from F2.
    I know the two curriculums are not meant to be compared, but at the end of the day if children come out of F2 as an able cohort, the expectation is that they do well at the end of KS1 and the end of KS2 as well, so comparisons need to be made whilst this flippin' expectation is still in place!
    We are having discussions at the moment as our FS results are always high, but when we baseline them at beginning of Y1 they don't look anywhere near as good on paper. We have children coming to us with 8s on the profile but reading books levelled as 'working towards NC'.
    It's very hard to challenge without causing aggravation and looking like we are accusing FS of bumping their levels - I'm not, I know the profile and its expectations are different.
    I just wondered how others manage this issue, as it surely isn't just us?
     
  3. titus4t

    titus4t New commenter

    This is interesting because I think this is a discussion I need to initiate in my school too. We were looking at yr1 data and it looks as if our tracking system equates a 7 at the end of YR with a 1C; an 8 with 1C+ and a 9 as a 1B. Is this normal? We were going to try too look at the FSP and APP and see if these were comparable but perhaps someone out there has already done that? Here's hoping......
     
  4. It sounds about right.
    If a child leaves FS as a 6, we are saying they are average, and should achieve a 2b at the end of Y2....track that backwards 2 sub levels a year, and we are saying they should be 1a by the end of Y1 which starts them at about a 1c at beginning of Y1.
    Moving upwards, we see a 7 as a 1b, an 8 as a 1a, and a 9 as 1a or even 2c.
    I know you aren't meant to translate these, and that we aren't comparing like for like, but if we are saying a child is average and will make average progress, that is what it equates too.
    Therefore if a child comes to us as a 9, and isn't reading a book band relevant to a level 1a/2c, then we are almost being set up to fail because they would have to make accelerated progress to stay above average.
    From our own baseline Y1 data we make good progress, but if you look at the cohort as a whole when they left FS we ALWAYS look like results are dipping compared to FS.
    And when we dont get them to age related expectations because they simply aren't a very able cohort, the FS data is often used as 'proof' that they were a higher ability cohort and is used to beat us with.
     
  5. pepethecat

    pepethecat New commenter

    that also works in reverse for the FS! i had a very able cohort of fs a couple of years ago in a previous school. at least a quarter of them were reading on entry to school, had very good phonics skills and made great progress through the year, some achieving 9 by easter. i had many discussions with the Y1/2 teacher and the head and asked many of my KS1/2 colleagues to "moderate" my judgements - all agreed with me, as did the fs moderators. So, to cut a long story short, up pops Mr Ofsted and judges the EYFS to be "good with many outstanding features" due to the progress made but the rest of the school achieved "adequate", as progress "appeared" to slow.
    Well, the head used this as stick to beat me with; she walked out of her debriefing with the inspector making a beeline for me and stated IN FRONT OF THE REST OF THE STAFF, that i "had made everyone else look useless and unable to do our jobs because of your bumped up judgements" and "if you hadn't given such high scores, we would be an 'outstanding' school".....i was absolutely devasted; from then, i often "caught" her and the Y1/2 teacher huddled in corners muttering about the scores and how could they "possibly look good when she sends up scores like that".
    the dep head was mortified by her behaviour and made a point of coming to tell me "i want to tell you that it has been noticed by other members of the SLT that you haven't actually been thanked for your hard work and we really value what you do"
    sadly, as the 1 irate parent can do to you at parents evening, i could not get her horrible words to me out of my mind and 2 weeks later told her i intended to look for another post
    the real irony is that when she appointed the NQT who replaced me, she told her, in front of me, "I'd like everything to run as it has been as our EYFS did so well at Ofsted"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [​IMG]
     
  6. Quite a sensitive subject in our school too! The two different curriculums are trying to be matched
    up when they are not meant to be! The points score system on EYFS was really to inform year 1
    teachers about whether the chidlren were working below, at or above national averge.
    The system didn't work hence the new EYFS levels of establishing, exceedingand expected.
    In our school we are trying something a little different this year. FS teachers will report
    according to EYFS as otherwise their hard work is not acknowledged. There will be an
    alloctaed session where the FS teacher and the year 1 teacher can sit together and discuss
    each childs levels and agree a NC baseline level for each child.
    They will still be expected to report on what the national ruler says the childs' FS level equates
    to (which point 4 is a 1C by the way!) but a professional dialgue will take place where
    hopefully the two camps can come to some consensus.
    Will be interested to know how others are getting over this issue. [​IMG]
     
  7. emilystrange

    emilystrange Star commenter

    there is NO correlation AT ALL. FS does NOT equate to any NC levels. EYFS reports shouldn't be stating any thing like that. (even if it was, point 4 would nowhere be nearly enough for 1c)
    all our Y1s start at 'working towards' and are assessed towards half term. it's y1 teachers that need to change the way they look at FS scores, imo.

     
  8. I know it 'shouldn't', and ours are baselined as working towards as well.
    However, whilst this damn government insists on comparing the two and assuming that children leaving FS above average will also be above average within NC, then FS data does have a huge impact on expectations in KS1. While this is happening and we are being interrogated as to "Why there is a dip between FS and KS1 data" some form of comparison is always going to be made,
     
  9. emilystrange

    emilystrange Star commenter

  10. Hmm you've been through different experiences to me!
    Whenever our data doesn't look great, the FS coordinator is asked by the HT "What the cohort were like in the FS" and if they were good then, we're scuppered and can't use the reasoning that they are just a poor cohort.
    We were also Ofsted'd last week and they wanted to know why there was a dip between FS and KS1.
     
  11. modgepodge

    modgepodge Established commenter

    This logic is causing me massive issues as a y1 teacher. You are saying that one point on FSP is the same as 1 sub level at NC. I disagree. I found out the other day a child can get a point in the writing section of FSP for holding a pencil correctly, another for writing left to right. A child does not move up a sub level of NC for such a minor step. A child could get a 6 without being able to write a sentence....they would not get a 1c at this level. The levels my children are supposed to achieve at the end of this year are frankly ridiculous (9/30 to get a 2b in writing, in a very young cohort) and its because someone somewhere made the assumption that 1 point of FSP= 1 sub level. I've got 1 child who came up on a 7 in reading, and is only JUST on a 1b now. He was well below a 1c when he started in September. Yet his target is a 2c....
     
  12. dagnabit

    dagnabit New commenter

    It's all a black art if you ask me. I use the FSP points to group them for the start of year 1and am always surprised (both pleasantly and not so much!) by how many kids need moved around within first few weeks. One of my girls came through with 3 points for writing and 3 for linking sounds and she is now a 1a (predicted to be pivats for end of year). She just did not get the opportunity to shine in reception and fell through the cracks as it were. I don't know how different things will be with the new framework.I'm not holding my breath.
     
  13. It's not that I see each profile pointas a sub-level.... just that a child with 6 is seen as average, 7-8 above average and 9 well above average.
    If you take expected attainment at end of Y2 and extrapolate it backwards using 'average' expected progress...an average child would have to start Y1 at a 1C. An above average would start at a 1b, and a well above average would start at a 1a.
    And an average FS child is a 6. I know they're not technically the same and aren't meant to be compared.
    Your example child coming up as a 7 is supposedly above average according to your FS colleagues. Hence his 2c target to get him to a 2a which is above average at Y2.
    I just think FS teachers need to take into account the expectations that they are laying out for each childs school career when filling in those boxes - regardless of whether we are MEANT to use it to target set or not, that is what seems to happen according to 'those that be'.
    I'd be more than happy to ignore FS data as it is a different form of assessment, baseline my children with NC levels and make my own assumptions about the cohort - but while we continue to be quizzed and challenged about KS1 attainment in comparison to FS attainment, I think FS need to see that their assessments are indeed part of the bigger whole school picture.
     
  14. We were ofsteded last month and there was a HUGE emphasis on data on entry to Nursery, entry to R, where they left KS1, then KS2. It is not fair and I totally agree that you can't compare or transfer FS data to NC.
    I have worked in both R and Y1...mainly Y1. What the Y1 teachers need to remember is that the R teacher does the FS data in June....but sooooo much can happen to the children in those 3 months between the scores being done and them entering Y1. Which is why...when i teach in Y1....I continue to plan using the ELG ...plugging gaps and extending some (by using some obj from NC)and filling in their own ELG sheet....and slowly start looking at NC levels-defo for the higher scores straight away.
    I assess using the ELG in Oct and Dec.....and from then on, I use NC and P scales. BUT in Oct & Dec, for the children who scored highly or I think are higher than they were in June of R, I use NC levels.
    So because of Ofsted, we're going to have to somehow put a simple grid not necessarily scores or levels but simple age related expectations...a red for under, yellow for at and green for above and try and track in that way too.
    Oh man...it's so messy!! Surely at the end of the day...if the childrern are happy, safe and have good and above progression, that's all that matters. Grrrr
     
  15. Twinkletoes79

    Twinkletoes79 New commenter

    I was devestated when I realised that my children had appeared to make no progress. However, our school equates FSP 4 to a 1c, FSP 6 to a 1b+ , FSP 8 to a 1A+ and FSP9 to 2c+. Although this works out that a below average 1c will be a 1b by end of Y1 and 2c by end of year 2 , actually these children who come up (correctly assessed by FS staff) on a FSP4 haven't had to do what you need for a 1C to get their point 4 so don't look on the Y1 results like they've made any progress at all....we manage to get them to a 1C or possibly to a 1B by end of Y1..I know the jump needs to be made somewhere but it is hard on Y1 teachers.
    Is this a normal way of doing it or do other schools do it differently?


     
  16. emilystrange

    emilystrange Star commenter

    fsp4 is NOWHERE near a 1c! AAGGHHHHH!
    tbh, when my YR move to Y1 in my mixed age class, i mostly discard fsp scores for a bit. they've had 6 weeks off and need to get back to where they were. there's no equating fsp to nc levels at all, because it's just not appropriate. our LA tracking has them all as W, WA or W+ for low, average or above, at the beginning of the year. that's all.
     
  17. toomuchtoosoon

    toomuchtoosoon New commenter

    For children in ks1 to make satisfactory progress they have to achieve a whole level I.e. 3sublevels per year. So if in year 2 they come out on average so a 2b then they would be 1b at end of year 1 and would have got 6 points in eyfs. So that would equate to the old WB. We take 9 eyfs points as a 1c. This also links to the children being average on 15 APS at end of y2, 9 at end of year 1
     
  18. toomuchtoosoon

    toomuchtoosoon New commenter

    If your children come out of eyfs average then to be average at end of ks1 they need to make 3 sub levels a year progress...we were thinking it was 2 then wondering how, after they came out as below average, this had happened as they had made 2 sub levels a year.
    I also have no definitive answer to the lack of correlation between the two systems and have children who come into year 1 as average now attending reading recovery and catch up and being in a lower letters and sounds phase than expected and also failing the phonics check they were expected to pass with flying colours. I have also put 2 of them on ieps
     
  19. Twinkletoes79

    Twinkletoes79 New commenter

    Thank you!! All the literature I have read says this, but my assessment coordinator won't listen...so at the moment FSP4 and 1C are both 7 APS points and FSP 9 and 2c are on the same too!! All the sims data came out red!! So depressing.....Problem is I don't know how to get it addressed as I've already tried to no avail....my worry is that staff will start thinking if FSP is being equated to a 1c then they need to assess higher or question the FS results....which isn't the case at all....everyone's assesssments are spot on...it's just the translation which is wrong.

     
  20. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Could that be because scale point 8 is still working towards NC level 1?
     

Share This Page