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

Where is the 'rule' that says a child at end of reception achieving a 6 should be converted to 1b on entry in Year 1 class?

Discussion in 'Early Years' started by dilly, Nov 22, 2009.

  1. I am getting really frustrated with this and have quoted the no comparisons on NAA, Jan Dubiel NAHT etc etc in my school but am being told that the ISP tracker says that my average children should be a 1b on entry to Y1.Does anyone know where this is coming from please and the answer! I am being questioned as to why my average children got a 6 but are not a 1b and am just hitting a brick wall.HELP!
     
  2. I am getting really frustrated with this and have quoted the no comparisons on NAA, Jan Dubiel NAHT etc etc in my school but am being told that the ISP tracker says that my average children should be a 1b on entry to Y1.Does anyone know where this is coming from please and the answer! I am being questioned as to why my average children got a 6 but are not a 1b and am just hitting a brick wall.HELP!
     
  3. don't have much help to offer except to say that the ISP tracker is correct- the age appropriate level on entry to yr 1 is 1b. I have been confused for a long time about the connection between 1b and 6+points!
     
  4. me again

    me again New commenter

    It would be good to see the specific reference in the ISP, as I haven't found it. If it is there, it's wrong as there is no equivalence and the OP is correct in her references to NAA publications and Jan Dubiel.
     
  5. on the ISP sheets we were given the shaded boxes (which show the age appropraite levels) are 1b and 1a in Sept Yr1 then 1a and 2C in July Yr1. When I was working in yr 1 these were the levels we were always judged against and we were told that Yr1 chn are expected to make 1 sub level progress rather than the 2 sublevels expected in other yr groups.
     
  6. NellyFUF

    NellyFUF Lead commenter

    Make sure you know where the children were on entry to reception.... no, not in the cloakroom messing about .. in terms of attainment and achievement.... because if they enter reception on what were yellow stepping stones/EYEFSP 1 ( now known some places as E1, 30 - 50 monthsish) then there is no way they can be 1c or 1b on entry to year one.
    I don't think anyone can quite tell you how many levels there are between FSP 1 and the Early Learning Goals....... at least 3 jumps it seems to me if not four....NOT THAT IT WAS EVER MEANT TO BE USED LIKE THIS sorry for shouting....
    So unless your children are FSP 3 on entry to reception this cannot be insisted upon by ISP.
    The clue here is really keen assessment on entry to reception.
    And then on down into nursery.. where actually, they will have to be well below age related expectations on entry to support your data.
    Which brings us to the cruchie place. There are not enough bands of assessment in the Development Matters to allow for nursery children to make two levels of progress a year. Sigh.
    Especially if they are in nursery two years as some September born children are. But I digress.
    if it looks like your children are delayed then you must have your arguments ready to support this and your assessment of them. Focus on CLLD PSED and PSRN and make sure your observations reveal delay.
    With support was able to.......
    Took an interest in......
    etc
    This is no way to run early years education is it?
     
  7. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Sorry but EYFSP scale point 6 isn't equal to a 1b - compare criteria in NC Levels with criteria for scale point 6
     
  8. I also find this frustrating as everybody is told different things. We are told that children should make 6 sublevels across KS1 so if a child entering Y1 with FSP 6 (average score) was converted to Level 1b then I would have to get that child to Level 2b by the end of Y1 and level 3b by the end of Y2 (not your average!!) - that can't be right! It's staggering that there can be such variation in what we are told. I would have said that a child with FSP average scores of 6 would be on track to achieve an average level of 2b by the end of Y2, therefore a level of 1b is more realistic at the <u>end</u> of Y1 - isn't it??? I'm sure this is what we were shown on some training somewhere! [​IMG]
     
  9. Msz

    Msz Established commenter



    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;}




    Foundation Stage
    Profile and Target Setting






    The Early Years
    Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP)is a way of summing up each child&rsquo;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&rsquo;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</u>[/b]. 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. There is NO equivalence between EYFS Profile Scale Points/ scores and
    National Curriculum Levels.
    <u>There is </u><u>NO </u>reliable statistical
    correlation between EYFS Profile attainment and NC KS1 at national level.</u> 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&rsquo;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.
     
  10. Msz - where did this come from?

    Also in yr 1 when they do their first piece of assessed writing, the teachers are assessing them at P7 or 8 etc, as 'we can't input W into target tracker, but it accepts P levels' I have argued and argued about this to no avail! I am confused because I thought P levels were for children on SEN register. Have I got it wrong?
    Can anyone clarify or direct me to some evidence?
     
  11. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    The actual piece is from the NAHT to all members


    <a name="Jan Dubiel">[/URL]Jan Dubiel
    trained as a teacher specialising in Early Years. He has taught
    Nursery, Reception and Year 1 age ranges, as well as leading and
    managing teams of practitioners. As a local authority consultant
    he trained and supported practitioners in the implementation of
    the Foundation Stage and developed partnership working. As Early
    Years Adviser for the London Borough of Havering he led the
    Early Years team in developing effective practice and provision.
    <u>He is currently Principal Officer for the Foundation Stage
    Profile at the National Assessment Agency, with national
    responsibility for its implementation and moderation.</u>

    P levels
    <h3>Current status</h3>

    From September 2007, schools are required to submit data, using the P
    scales, for pupils aged 5-16<u> with SEN</u> who are working below level 1 of
    the National Curriculum.
     
  12. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    <u> What is the relationship between Foundation Stage Profile assessments and
    National Curriculum levels?</u>

    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 &hellip;&hellip;. Any equation of FSP scales or scale
    point scores to NC levels or invented sub-levels is a spurious and ultimately inaccurate
    exercise.
    I
     
  13. thank you for that Msz.
     
  14. Thank you for all your comments and other evidence. I am so glad it is not just me who feels so frustrated.
    Interestingly, in trying to find other evidence contradicting this idea I looked at my CLLD trackers and the Letters and Sounds trackers and guided reading book band trackers say that the average child should be on the L &S phase 3 /4 yellow band which equates to ELG at the end of reception.Level 1b/1a is phase 5/6 and is the expectation for the end of Y1.To be a 1b at the end of reception they would have to be working on phase 5 (green band)!
    At my CLLD meeting we were told that the hope at the end of reception is that 80% will be secure at phase 3 so how could they possibly be a 1b?

     
  15. Hi Msz
    Would you be able to clarify where this information comes from please? Or is it the same as your other quote? I am trying to gather information that shows we should not be trying to equate fsp scores to nc levels. My head teacher insists that it can be done and there is a big dip in the first term in year one when we start assessing against NC and I am getting a little fed up with having to justify why a child getting 6 in writing in FSP is not getting 1B at oct half term!!!

    Thanks
    Mimi
     
  16. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    http://www.aaia.org.uk/pdf/Publications/FAQs%20-%20assessing%20children%27s%20attainment%20in%20the%20foundation%20stage.pdf


    The Early Years Foundation
    Stage




    Guidance on Understanding and Using
    <strong style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66;">EYFS
    <strong style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff;">Profile[/b] Data in Schools[/b]

    Introduction



    This guidance is based on current information
    from QCDA including recent exemplification materials. Assessment,
    record keeping and demonstrating progress in the Early Years Foundation
    Stage are inextricably <strong style="color:black;background-color:#99ff99;">linked[/b]. Effective practice is demonstrated
    when these processes:-

    • create a well-rounded picture
      of a child&rsquo;s attainment, i.e. over all 6 areas of learning and development


    • recognise the individuality
      of each child and the diversity of children
    • i.e. every child
      is successful in their learning
    • provide judgements based
      on observation-led evidence, predominantly from children&rsquo;s self-initiated
      activities.
    • i.e. not more than 20% of evidence
      taken from adult directed activities, with the remaining 80% of evidence
      to be based on the practitioner&rsquo;s knowledge of the child, observations
      and anecdotal assessments
    • are focussed on enhancing
      the learning of individuals and groups of children,
    • i.e. planning
      next steps (targets)
    • involve all concerned parties,
      including parents and children themselves


    • are undertaken by contributors
      informed about early childhood learning and development


    For further detail on assessment and
    record keeping, please refer to

    • &ldquo;Creating
      the Picture&rdquo;.
    This is available to download on the
    Early Years section of Cornwall&rsquo;s website as well as from:

    • REF: 00283-2007DWO-EN-01.
    It contains excellent advice and guidance
    on:-

    • Observational assessment
      in the context of the <strong style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66;">EYFS[/b] (the 4 themes)
    • Principles for observational
      assessment
    • Principles for record keeping
    • Principles for demonstrating
      progress


    This key document underpins <strong style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66;">EYFS[/b] and
    current <strong style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66;">EYFS[/b] <strong style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff;">Profile[/b] training. It is recommended for use in all
    schools to support decisions about effective practice, manageable record
    keeping systems and appropriate evidence to support judgements about
    children&rsquo;s achievements and progress.

    Attainment on entry to a reception
    class


    This process is not standardised and
    there is no prescribed way to do this. The following guidance
    is offered as an option to ensure that schools feel confident about
    children&rsquo;s attainment including the SEF and responding to OFSTED.



    Although attainment tends to suggest
    numerical data, it is crucial that schools also include qualitative
    information on each child, i.e.

    • Child&rsquo;s interests
    • Parents&rsquo; knowledge of
      child&rsquo;s achievements and skills, any concerns etc
    • Child&rsquo;s previous experiences
      &ndash; pre-school, childminder, day nursery etc. Records should be
      valued and practitioners must develop good professional relationships
      to ensure a smooth transition for every child. A useful prompt
      sheet to guide discussions with pre-school practitioners around previous
      attainment is available on our website (&lsquo;School/setting Transition
      Information Sheet&rsquo;).
    • Relevant medical information,
      involvement with other agencies, e.g. speech therapist.
    • Relevant SEN information
    • EAL, CIC, BME


    Schools have developed their own ways
    of gathering this information as part of their induction/transition
    procedures such as:-

    • Home visits
    • Opportunities for pre-school
      practitioners to share the Learning Journeys and other records they
      have completed with the Reception Class teacher
    • Scrapbooks which parents
      complete with their child
    • Parental questionnaires
    • Open days, parents&rsquo; sessions
    • Liaison with pre-school
      providers
    • &ldquo;Learning together&rdquo;
      sessions


    All the information gathered is important
    in helping to build up an initial picture of each child&rsquo;s achievements
    and experiences to date. Some elements may be significant in later
    analysis such as the proportion of children who have had no pre-school
    experience or who have summer birthdays.

    Using the <strong style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff;">profile for on entry attainment[/b]



    Numerical information can be gathered
    using the <strong style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66;">EYFS[/b] <strong style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff;">Profile[/b] from the outset. Over the first half term,
    practitioners will be getting to know each child, talking with him/her
    and parents and observing each child during the course of everyday activities
    in school. Through observing children carefully, finding out about
    their needs, what they are interested in and what they can do, practitioners
    start to build up evidence of achievements. Noting children&rsquo;s
    responses in different situations and contexts and then analysing this
    information to highlight achievements and to plan next steps, is part
    of the practitioner&rsquo;s role within effective <strong style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66;">EYFS[/b] provision.



    All this evidence can then be used
    to make judgements and give a summary of each child&rsquo;s achievements
    at a particular point in time. The <strong style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff;">Profile[/b] is the best means to
    do this and the recommended time is around 4 - 6 weeks after the child
    has been admitted into school. Records from previous setting(s)
    that a child has attended should also be taken into account.



    Although schools often give high priority
    to developing children&rsquo;s personal, social and emotional skills, it
    is essential that achievements in all 6 areas of learning and development
    are noted at this time.

    Each child&rsquo;s achievements across
    the 13 assessment scales within the <strong style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff;">Profile[/b] should be recorded and this
    gives a clear picture of attainment on entry.

    Expectations for children&rsquo;s achievements
    at the end of the Early Years Foundation Stage have always been
    that most children should achieve most of the Early Learning Goals.
    This is not precise and therefore it is unhelpful to use the term &ldquo;average&rdquo;
    in describing on entry or end of <strong style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66;">EYFS[/b] achievements.



    For the purposes of making judgements
    about a cohort of Reception children&rsquo;s attainment on entry, the following
    is therefore suggested:-

    <ol>[*]Child with scores of mostly
    1s with some 2s &ndash; child is below national expectations</ol>


    <ol>[*]Child with scores of mostly
    2s with some 3s &ndash; child is around national expectations</ol>


    <ol>[*]Child with scores of mostly
    3s with some 4s or better (i.e. achieving some ELGs) &ndash; child is above
    national expectations</ol>


    Children&rsquo;s learning and development
    across the 6 areas at this stage is unlikely to be precise, linear or
    consistent, so some professional judgements have to be made honestly
    and with integrity.

    With the above information on each
    child, it is possible to then make judgements on the cohort and, in
    general terms, the attainment on entry. In the analysis, it is
    worth noting PSED and CLL scores together, as these are recognised as
    being the chief determinants of future positive outcomes. However,
    all scales are important.

    As an alternative to using the <strong style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff;">profile[/b]
    to make on-entry judgements, some schools may prefer to use the <strong style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66;">EYFS[/b]
    phases of development. Ofsted guidance suggests that on entry
    to school, most children will have completed the 30-50 month phase and
    aspects of 40-60 months. So on entry attainment could be based
    on the proportion of children having completed each phase of development.
    This system would be particularly appropriate where accurate records
    are passed on from pre-school or nursery.

    Attainment on entry to a nursery
    class


    The <strong style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66;">EYFS[/b] <strong style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff;">profile[/b] should not be used
    in nursery units and classes. Instead, children&rsquo;s progress should
    be monitored using the phases of development from the <strong style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66;">EYFS[/b] framework.
    Some nursery classes have developed their own systems, but further training
    to support nursery teachers and pre-school practitioners with this process
    will be available over 2009/10. Attainment of individuals, groups
    and the cohort can be compared directly with age related expectations.



    Demonstrating/tracking progress
    across the <strong style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66;">EYFS
    [/b]

    One-off tests are not a suitable way
    of gaining evidence for children&rsquo;s progress and should not be used.
    The <strong style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff;">Profile[/b], which reflects development and learning within a range
    of contexts, over time and chiefly through child-initiated activities,
    should form the basis of all assessments.

    Progress can be tracked over the 3
    terms in a reception class using the <strong style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66;">EYFS[/b] <strong style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff;">Profile[/b]. Initial and
    later assessments and summary scores are completed on a half termly
    basis as follows in many schools already:-

    Oct &ndash; initial assessments completed
    (on entry) and optional submission to LA for analysis

    December &ndash; updated assessments to
    monitor progress and plan next steps for children

    Feb &ndash; update assessments as above

    Easter &ndash; update assessments as above

    June &ndash; Final assessments and data
    submitted to LA

    Progress within the <strong style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66;">EYFS[/b] will be at
    the rate determined by the responses of the individual child within
    well planned and stimulating provision. This will vary according
    to interest, age and maturity, circumstances and other variables.
    Progress constitutes &ldquo;doing better than one&rsquo;s previous best&rdquo;

    for each child and this will, of course, vary according to the different
    starting points. There may also be issues for the school to consider
    such as the appropriateness of the environment, resources, pedagogy,
    opportunities for independent, child-initiated activities, as well as
    next steps or targets &ndash; all part of self evaluation.



    In analysing the EYFSP data each half
    term, it is worth asking the following questions:-



    <ol>[*]Have all the children made
    progress from their initial assessments?</ol>
    • In all 6 areas of learning and
      development?
    • If not, why not?
    • What are we doing about it?

    <ol>[*] Which children are at risk
    of failing to achieve a &lsquo;good level of development&rsquo; (i.e. 78+ overall
    with 6+ across all PSED and CLL scales)? How can we support these
    children to accelerate their progress?</ol>


    <ol>[*]Which children are likely
    to achieve most of the ELGs i.e. get a score of 6 or more?</ol>
    In
    which of the 13 scales?

    <ol>[*]Do some children need more
    challenge?</ol>
    How
    will we do this?

    <ol>[*]Are there any specific scale
    points which many children are not yet achieving?</ol>
    What
    can we do about this?

    <ol>[*]Are there any differences
    between boys and girls&rsquo; achievement? Other groups?</ol>
    What
    can we do about this?

    Analysing EYFSP Data at the end
    of the reception year


    Total scores and averages are not helpful
    as, although they give a general picture of overall achievement, they
    mask children&rsquo;s strengths and weaknesses in specific areas of learning
    and development. Schools receive a detailed analysis of their
    cohort&rsquo;s data from the LA early in the Autumn Term, which requires
    closer attention.

    In looking at children&rsquo;s final scores,
    the following may be helpful:-

    <ol>[*]Children achieving scores
    of 8 or 9 &ndash; above national expectations (including possible Gifted
    and Talented)</ol>


    <ol>[*]Children achieving scores
    of 6 or 7 &ndash; around national expectations. Generally, these are
    regarded as a &ldquo;good&rdquo; level of achievement, but this depends on
    the starting point
    </ol>


    <ol>[*]Children achieving scores
    of 4 or 5 &ndash; below national expectations. This does not necessarily
    mean SEN or lack of progress &ndash; possibly a summer birthday, absence
    due to hospitalisation etc</ol>


    <ol>[*]Children achieving scores
    of 3 or less are of concern &ndash; possibly SEN. They have not yet
    achieved any of the ELGs and this is an important consideration for
    Y1 teacher(s) in meeting individual needs</ol>


    It is important to be aware that one
    child scoring 6 points overall in one of the 13 assessment scales may
    not be exactly the same as another child scoring 6 points e.g.



    In the writing scale, Child A achieves
    Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. She is not yet writing for a variety
    of purposes, using features of different forms (Point 6)



    Child B achieves Points 1, 2, 3, 4,
    6 and 7. He is a confident writer but still has some problems
    with the physical skills as he is not yet holding pencil and using it
    effectively to form recognisable letters, most of which are correctly
    formed (Point 5)

    Both children have achieved 6 points
    in total, but their individual needs and next steps to success are different.
    This has implications for practitioners planning in YR and Y1.



    The outcomes of the EYFSP can be used
    to:-

    • Identify strengths and areas
      for improvement within <strong style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66;">EYFS[/b] provision (self evaluation)
    • Inform school improvement
      planning
    • Provide comparisons of achievement
      for different groups e.g. gender, ethnicity, EAL, summer-born children
    • Ensure that the curriculum
      in Y1 is responsive to children&rsquo;s needs
    • Support performance management
    &ldquo;Assessment, record-keeping and
    demonstrating progress in <strong style="color:black;background-color:#ffff66;">EYFS[/b] are not about assessing, recording and
    creating data sets designed to depress or enhance outcomes for ends
    such as improving added value&rdquo;


    &ldquo;Creating The Picture&rdquo;
    p25
     
  17. I have just spent an horrific morning. Our head has been in discussion with an HMI who has passed on a sheet indicating that a child receiving pt 9 in EYFS profile is working at the equivalent of 2c. Therefore, according to this, children leaving my Year 1 class that I have assessed as having aspects of 2b, but working securely within a 2c seem to have made no progress in the year. Our assessment data is only just moving to using APPs, but we have used a mish-mash of assessments through KS1. So now I feel as if I haven't done my job and am a really poor teacher - even though 100% of the class have move at least 1 sub-level, and in over 85%, 2 or more in reading, writing and maths.
     
  18. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    sorry but the age appropriate level for entry to Y1 is not 1B!
    and a score of 6 on any area does not convert into a 1B or even a 1C
    The ISP tracker is certainly not correct!
     

  19. so what level is age appropriate for yr 1?
     
  20. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    For schools that work by the 2 sub levels progress formula 1C on entry would give a 2B at the end of KS1 but that is not the same as saying a score of 6 equals a 1C or a 1B or and other NC level

    There are a number of tracking systems out there all giving different equivalencies
    for example primary progress equates a score of 9 with a 1C

    you might be interested in this from the NAHT
    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. <u>Children with the same
    points score will therefore probably have a different level of
    achievement.</u>

     

Share This Page