94 replies to this topic

[Moose]

I'd be really grateful if you would be kind enough to share your overall points score for one of your top, middle and lower ability children. I know things vary from area-to-area and cohort-to-cohort but I'd still be interested so that I can either rejoice in that I'm doing an okay job or sink into despair because my children are obviously woefully behind! Thanks!

[tea lady]

Don't have a class so sorry can't provide data! Have you seen the QCA advice? "A scale score of 6 or more in all scales indicates a good level of achievement within the ELGs". The attachment gives you the national data for last year if this is any help. I wouldn't go too mad with it - it's not that reliable yet - only been scoring for a few years or until the whole nation is scoring consistently. I use the FSP handbook criteria to death - make sure children are meeting what the criteria says under each point - far more important.

Attached Files

•  national_data_final_05.pdf   63.29K   326 downloads

[Marion]

Sorry I use Durham's own scheme which isnt translated into profile points until after half term.

[tinkerbell]

I use the e-profile moose but have a small cohort of 16. My youngest is on the Gifted and talented list and can write in sentences with correct spelling (knows the KS1 list as well as Reception list) so she is 9's all the way a lovely well rounded child.My middle ability are around 6.. and my weaker ones 5. I also have 2 statemented children who are around 2/3 as its the language and understanding they come a cropper in.
Hope this is of use I work in a 'middle class' village school the children come in quite well ajusted but from 8 different settings so its the PSHCE bit where they score low on sharing etc.
Tinkerbellx

[Moose]

Thanks for the replies so far. It's the overall score I'm interested in really. I do religiously hang on to the '6 = a good score' from the Standards Site although there has been some recent debate on this site about what 'good' actually means when you compare this to the gumph in the Curriculum Guidance which says that MOST children should be reaching all the ELGs. However, I do believe that you cannot possibly expect ALL children to reach all of the points on the FSP and that a 'good' overall score would therefore be 13 x 6 = 78. In my current class one of my 'tops' is on 66, a 'middle' on 46 and a 'lower' on 28.

We have been told by our LEA that FSP scores can be used to set predicted scores/targets for Y2 SATs: an end of YR '6' on the FSP in, say, MD is meant to mean a score/target of 2B+ at SATs. I have great problems with this which I won't go into here, but it has made me even more determined to not 'give the benefit of the doubt' when assessing because of the pressures this will put on children and our Y2 teacher if the scores I give are too high.

[tinkerbell]

Moose
I agree with you entirally .I was a yr2 for many years and when the SATs started the average child was a 2C now it's a2B you couldnt get a 3 in english unless you joined up your writing., and if you said the orange floated because it was orange you scored a 3 in Science!!!!!!
How times have changed.
I was always aware that the Class 3 teacher dreaded the 3's because once converted to numbers the numbers were actually for 3B and the children would have just scrapped a 3.©...but having just scrapped the 3 I had to give it to them because they deserved it ..I prefer the new way of collecting work and showing lots of examples of their 3'ness.
But the end of FS and play based yr1 curriculum does need

[Moose]

Harumph (that's meant to be a disgruntled noise but I wasn't sure how to spell it!)! Have just properly read the attachment posted by tea lady about the scoring 6 thing. This kind of goes against the Standards Site thing, doesn't it, which says about 6 being a good score? If they're arguing that 'the majority' of children achieve 6 or more then you can bet your life that they'll move the goalposts because for 'the majority' you could substitute 'average' and then this doesn't equate to 'good'. The fact that 'most' can be 1 more than half won't get a look in will it?!

I'm breathing fire now - can you feel it? I blame those people who I meet at local meetings who mark off all of the points on the FSP just because they've delivered all the ELGs and then when my scores came back last year on those spider-web diagram things mine were below the County average. I know I felt smug at my last meeting when they were talking about using profile scores to predict SATs and I sat there looking at people who I knew had delivered scores of 100+ for all their children and thinking of the dreadful burden this placed on the children and the Y2 teachers. When the scores come in it's going to make the value added from Reception to Y2 look really bad, isn't it, when in actual fact there's probably nothing wrong with it - it was just that the initial assessments were off.

Does that make any sense and can you feel the rage?!

Edited by Moose, 12 April 2006 - 02:31 PM.

[Moose]

Sorry about above rant and if I've scared you all! I'd still like to know your profile scores please! I promise I won't say anything if you've already got them all on 117!

[Marion]

Moose, on Apr 12 2006, 17:04, said:

Sorry about above rant and if I've scared you all! I'd still like to know your profile scores please! I promise I won't say anything if you've already got them all on 117!

I was sooooooooooo scared I spent the last hour transfering my 'top' and 'bottom' onto the FSP (wouldnt do it for just anyone ) Must say its much easier electronically. Came out with a score of 95 but she is exceptional (and I havent re checked yet to see if I added up right) and 52 (scored high in PSE and Language for communication and thinking) When I get exact figures back from LEA will let you know.

[Moose]

Thanks Marion you lovely person you! I hope you don't have nightmares tonight thinking of scary old me . My low is really low isn't he and my high isn't doing that great either compared to yours, even allowing for the fact that yours is exceptional. GULP!

[Bungalow]

Hi,
Moose I think you worry too much, I try and let these things 'wash over me' as best I can!

Having said that I am worried this year because I think my class are going to score quite highly (and I want to score really carefully and thoughtfully - cautiously) BUT they are a capable class?!?!

I don't have my profiles with me, but I think my lowest score would probably only be about 30/40, middle 60 ish and top 80 ish (no-one is yet to get a 9) and I am of the understanding that a 9 is an exceptional score - so even my two children who can read and write fluently don't have a 9 - may be they will by the end of the year.

My class is a lovely, diverse mix.

I would like to make the following points/observations about the profile:

1. At the moderation meeting last year, I thought it was ironic that if you scored your children very low, you, therefore, had little to prove (ie no evidence was needed to back up your judgements) Whereas if you ticked off 7 or 8 (which the child rightly deserved) you needed to back this up with loads of evidence - I came alway thinking I could make life very easy for myself by not bothering much with the profiles (which is a totally WRONG thing to think)

By the way, there were lots of complaints about our moderation meeting last year so hopefully our own professional judgement will be enough for some points this year.

2. Also I think the Profile already dictates the scoring before the child gets any where near it - what I mean is the Physcial ones are quite 'easy' really aren't they, whereas the linking sounds and letters and writing are quite hard. Reading the attachment from Tea Lady proves this I think.

3. Also how many of us (me included I am sorry to say) start looking at the Profile points as a starting point for teaching? Particularly when you notice gaps and feel the pressure of moderation? I think there is such a danger in this, closing down the learning etc but for simple time saving measures and making the profile managable with 30 in your class, it is sometimes easy to teach/assess straight from the profile.

Sorry to go on.

[Marion]

Moose, on Apr 12 2006, 17:57, said:

Thanks Marion you lovely person you! I hope you don't have nightmares tonight thinking of scary old me  . My low is really low isn't he and my high isn't doing that great either compared to yours, even allowing for the fact that yours is exceptional. GULP!

My children are scoring much higher this year on PSE and Speaking and Listening (afraid my low got over half his points in these 4 areas) so not much for the other bits . Not sure how this will all compute to predict SAT results if they are using overall scores as he got 2s and 3s in linking sounds to letters / reading/ writing/ number/shape/calculations .So I guess when number crunching it needs to be treated with a little caution.

Edited by Marion, 12 April 2006 - 05:15 PM.

[Marion]

2. Also I think the Profile already dictates the scoring before the child gets any where near it - what I mean is the Physcial ones are quite 'easy' really aren't they, whereas the linking sounds and letters and writing are quite hard. Reading the attachment from Tea Lady proves this I think.
Quote Bungalow



Children in my class come in with very poor physical skills and I have some children still scoring 3-4 in this area...........this is reflected in their writing score. Think this shows we can all have similar totals but our children have lots of different strengths and weaknesses

[megchar]

Moose, on Apr 12 2006, 10:49, said:

I'd be really grateful if you would be kind enough to share your overall points score for one of your top, middle and lower ability children. I know things vary from area-to-area and cohort-to-cohort but I'd still be interested so that I can either rejoice in that I'm doing an okay job or sink into despair because my children are obviously woefully behind! Thanks!

hi I am new to the site so bear with me
I am Year R leader of an infants school with 3 classess per uear group
Last year was my 1st year as year leader( previously in the Nursery)
I was keen to keep to all the guidance given in moderation meetings as a result our scores for the first time came lower than county average - either everyone else was giving away points like sweets or we were hard, or maybe it was just that group of children.
as a result we have done a lot of soul searching about our teaching, internal moderating etc however year 1 teachers say they are about usual so draw your own conclusions!
this year we are at the moment with this cohort each class is as follows for total points

below average 33
average 70
above 82

the main thing is don't worry about totals. think about the children, what they need. it may be interesting to see how children progress as they get older but at times people try to get me to put children on the register because they have a 'low' score but I know that they will get there

[tea lady]

I think everyone nationally has been getting mixed messages about the FSP since its introduction - completing the ELGs, but now a score of 6 is "good", how much evidence to keep etc etc. The Standards site attachment does categorically say that it would be "spurious" (great word) to map scores into KS1 SATs predictions - we need to shout this from the roof tops!!!
Don't know if I have said this before but it is far more important to baseline children on entry and then look at their progress - after all they are individual children and isn't that what is important??? The e profile is great for this - use scores to consider provision improvements. When are we going to get away from this data-tastic culture we live in???