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
  3. The Teacher Q&A will be closing soon.

    If you have any information that you would like to keep or refer to in the future please can you copy and paste the information to a format suitable for you to save or take screen shots of the questions and responses you are interested in.

    Don’t forget you can still use the rest of the forums on theTes Community to post questions and get the advice, help and support you require from your peers for all your teaching needs.

    Dismiss Notice

Year 1 Assessment (NOT APP)

Discussion in 'Assessment' started by jamessavage, Apr 7, 2011.

  1. I was wondering if anyone could help? I'm going in to Year 1/2 next year again. I started off in there in my first year of teaching and after three years in Year 3 I'm back. When I was last in there I used level descriptors to level each child using a 'best fit' model. It was very time consuming. In the school at the moment from Year 2 up to Year 6 we use optional QCA test papers and SATs to find levels for each child. In the Foundation Stage we use Early Years profiles. Year 1 seems to be a gap! We're slooooooooooowly dipping in to APP but I'm nowhere near confident enough to use it to assess a whole class.
    What do other people use to assess lit and num in Year 1?
     
  2. I have been a year 1 teacher for many years now. There is nothing to directly assess year 1 and never has been!! It has always been very difficult to assess accurately. We are using APP now and at least that gives better guidance, but even then, it is not that simple for year 1. Writing is the easiest, so start with that one. (It does get quicker once you get into it). For reading, I find the APP more difficult, as you can have a child who can read just about enough words to tick AF1, but who is good at discussing books. They can come out with a high level 1, even though their actual decoding of text is still poor. There is then the danger that they stay at that level for a long time, until their decoding skills catch up. I tend to take into account their reading scheme level, as well as APP. For your more able, you could possibly use old KS1 sats tests, to back up your own assessment, as they should be into level 2s by the end of the year. You have to assess as you go along. Each time you group read, pick a reading AF to focus questions/discussion on. Then you can tick those chn who can do it. You can gradually work your way through the Afs over the weeks. Same goes for maths - check your lessons against the Afs, before you teach, then you can have in mind 1 aspect you can particularly look for, as you teach each group. It's not perfect, but it certainly helps. Invest in lots of post-its too! Hope this helps.
     
  3. can i ask as a year one teacher whether the end of year one assessment results have any impact/affect/weighting on the eventual FFT target that are given to the children after their KS1 SATS? or are the FFT based on the KS1 results and the other contributing factors such as school area/age/FSM etc?
     
  4. Year 1 assessments have no impact on FFT - FFT would have no access to them to be able to make use of them. I'm not clear whether FFT has any functionality that would enable a school to input their own internal results to model future outcomes.

    FFT do produce reports for KS1 schools, so the contextual factors are applied to end of Year 2 results.
     
  5. Thanks for all the advice. Since starting I'm beginning to realise that my Guided Reading is helping me loads with assessing reading.
    I've set myself a goal of getting to grips with Writing APP this term. I'm sure I'll get there!
    Thanks jliddington1 [​IMG]
     
  6. T34

    T34 Established commenter

    FFT doesn't give targets.
    It gives an estimate and stresses that estimates are not (necessarily) targets.

     

Share This Page