here is something I don't understand, and I can't find anyone who does..
The 'average child' get 6 points in thier EYFSP in each scale. Apparently, children should score 8 points to be ready to work on the National Curriculum, so there is a gap. Now, I'm happy to recommend continuing to work on the EYFS, but Y1 teachers are confused by that being necessary for so many children. It is a bit odd, isn't it?

A very good question, one that many of us have probably thought about. Obviously point 6 means that some ELGs have been achieved but perhaps not all. Maybe it's then worth analysing (aahhh!) which points children haven't achieved as if there are common ones that they haven't achieved these can be addressed alongside the National Curriculum. For instance, one element that meant that some our children didn't achieve 8 points is Holds a pencil and
Holds a pencil and uses it effectively to form recognisable letters, most of which are correctly formed
This can be something that can easily be addressed, although it can take time, but you would not want to stop children moving forward in other elements of writing just because of that one element. From my experience in year 2, some children find it incredibly difficult to use full stops in their writing and although you can carry on drip feeding it, you would still teach other elements of writing.

I suppose what I really think is that there is not a huge difference between the content in the EYFS and NC it is perhaps the traditional ways things are taught that is the difference and perhaps that's what needs to be considered in year 1. I am sure I cover some NC objectives in year R without even realising it or planning to as do many others.

I'm assuming when you say 'average child' you're talking about the nonsense that advisors spout? At least our advisors do. They claim that children who score above 6 on the EYFSP at the end of reception year are 'above average' and should be predicted to get a level 3 at the end of year 2. I think this is utter nonsense, as does the other year 1 teacher, and the FS teacher at my school. The year 1 teacher has heard the man who designed the FS profile scales speak and he himself said that what a child scores cannot and should not be used to predict NC levels in the furture as rates of development vary with age and also the two are so different that to do so is ridiculous.

Sadly the LEA advisor people continue to feed to our head that the reception teacher should not be scoring the children above a 6 unless they are sure they will hit level 3 by the end of year 2 as it will affect the school's (and presumably the authority's) value added scores and other related things. Our head even has a chart in her office which shows where children should be level wise by the end of year one and year two related to their EYFSP scores.

You're quite right that it doesn't make sense. My understanding is that the average child scores between 6 and 8 points per strand with 8 merely being high average and 6 low average. 9 is exceptional, as shown at a glance in the profile by the fact that the box is slightly seperated. The whole things makes me really angry, especially as children are in some cases being deliberately under marked so as not to affect these ridiculous predictions of level 3s.

Perhaps this guidance from the National Association of Head Teachers would interest your head

http://www.naht.org.uk/welcome/resources/k...target-setting/

Thanks!

Yeah I'm told 6 is average, what rubbish if the aim is all of them. However I know if I give a child an average of above 6 for PSRN or CLL strands they enter Y1 county tracking at level 1b. To maintain the progress they must get level 3 by the end of ks1 and level 5 in ks2. If not the value added falls and with performance related pay ....

I have been thinking about this a lot recently.

It again came to my attention this week in our staff meeting with we were moderating the APPs for KS1 and 2. The year 1 teachers said that there is a significant number of children not yet working to level 1 so I have suggested that they have a sheet before that with their profile points highlighted and once they have achieved them they should be ready for the level 1 APP assessment. Does that make sense?

Obviously this only picks up literacy and numeracy, but like mentioned on previous post, most things can be met within the national curriculum objectives.

Hope that is useful, addresses assessment rather than planning for these children.

KST

6 points is considered to be a 'good' level at the end of year R. I wouldn't consider it to be necessary to have to achieve all of them in the same way that a child who is working at level 3 in KS1 wont necessarily have achieved EVERY objective for KS1; neither would a child getting a 5 in SATS at KS2 or even a child getting an A* in their GCSE.

It is however, as KST and kittycat points out, a good idea to know where the gaps are for children on entry to year one so that provision can be tailored for that. The profile data should give that. So you would begin to work within the requirements for year one, based on what they already know, and in the areas in which they are able to. In areas that show weakness especially for groups of children, you would tailor what you do accordingly.

You are all very sensible... now to convert the rest of the world!