hi

I am a KS 1 teacher- special school. Have been informed that chdn from EYFS who achieve 8 on the 1-9 scale for EYFS profile should achieve NC level 3 at end of KS 1 and those achieving 6 points should achieve level 2. Does any one know if this is correct, please?

What evidence is needed from EYFS of attainments?

What percentage, roughly, nationally achieve 8-9 on EYFS profile by end of yr R? Similarly for EYFS 6?

At what point do you say that chdn should start NC? eg should this be when ELGs are achieved and does that mean achieving 8 or 9 from the profile? I am assuming there must be some overlap between the development matters and the descriptors for level 1 NC- and the descriptors for both, of course, suggest that.

What percentage of chnd nationally- roughly- would UNDERSTAND the number 57 at beginning of KS1? Many might read it but does this mean understanding it and would you expect chdn starting yr 1 to be able to do formal additions with numbers of this size?

Please help by answering all the questions as I really need answers to these. Not having difficulties with the EYFS dept at school but a little with the management. This just needs clarifying in order to move on- nothing major but would like to avoid it becoming so.

Thank you

Krystyna

Scale points 1-3 are Development Matters (often some or all are achieved in nursery)
Scale points 4-8 are Early Learning Goals
Children who are achieving Scale point 9 on the profile are already consistantly working beyond ELGs (anywhere between NC level 1 &2C depending on the scale point)



You can look at all the tables National and LA

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000911/index.shtml

click on Additional EXEL to download


Some LAs are linking profile scores to NC level targets but there is no clear correlation so not very reliable




I'm not sure where your question comes from why 57?

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS NOT RIGHT THAT CHILDREN WHO ACHIEVE 9 POINTS ARE EQUIVALENT TO ANYTHING IN KS1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When children leave the foundation stage they are only ready for 1ks1 if they have achieved 78 points or more at E.Y.F.S AND have scored 6 points in EVERY area of P.S.E.D AND C.L.L.D. At the end of the Autumn term in Y1 the children then need assessing and ONLY THESE ASSESSMENTS can be used to predict an end of KS1 score. I repeat , you cannot base any KS1 scores on profile scores and anyone who says is WRONG!!! Sorry but I am fed up of hearing things said along those lines. Check with your assessment advisors if you need clarification.
P.S. I am usually quite a calm person !!!???!!!!

I second all this!!!


Also with the whole thing about the number 57, I'm assuming you just picked an arbitary number for the question and that you were just talking generally about numbers with tens and units.

I couldn't talk about a percentage of children who could work with numbers this size on going into year one but very small would be my guess! Working with numbers to 100 and being able to carry out calculations with them (by breaking them down into their tens and units) is an END of KS1 skill. Any children leaving reception who could do this would be considered exceptionally talented as far as I know (I have a child leaving year one with this skill and that's considered very talented!) As for "many might read it" I don't even think that is true. Yes they might be able to, however the EYFSP only expects them to read and understand numbers to 20 to achieve scale point 9 (which is considered above average) so I'd say that not being able to read numbers beyond 20 would not necessarily mean the child wasn't doing well.

Could someone please clarify something for me. If a child has scored 6 points in FSP at end of reception, do they begin Year 1 on the NC or does the Year 1 teacher take them on from the 6 points until they have achieved all 9 on FSP and THEN start the NC? Help!

I don't really have the answer to your queries but more questions to add as I am currently working on analysis EYFS and KS1 data. Firstly, the average child is expected to acheive 6 points in each area which is 78 points in total. I only have 1 or 2 children achieving point 9.

I personally don't believe that EYFS scales can be converted into NC levels. There are some over lap on the profile point to level 1 NC but it doesn't correlate enough to justify to converting the points.

In previous years we were asked to convert PSED and CLL points into NC levels as these points are supposed to be the most reliable at predicting how children do but it didnt make sense to me and didnt provide reliable predictions. This year we were advised to give children a NC level at the end of the autum term of year 1 as most children will then have completed the early learning goals and will be working within the national curriculum.

What I am now unsure of is how to predict end of KS1 results, as in to set targets. We previous expected children to make 1 levels progress but now there is a term less in which to show this so does it change? Also how do people show progress made from end of reception to end of autumn term year 1? For some children this will be easy if they still using the profile, but for most children they will have moved from the ELGs to NC levels in this time.

Hope that all makes sense! Sorry I haven't really helped - just added to the confusion! xx

It is currently not possible to use EYFS profile data to calculate a numerical statement of ‘value added’ during the EYFS year. This exercise would not take into account the child’s individual starting point or the fact that each child learns at a varying rate and pace that may fluctuate across the year according to many factors.
Neither is it possible to make predictions about children’s future attainment as there is no correlation between EYFS profile
data and key stage 1 or 2 outcomes or national curriculum levels.

http://www.qcda.gov.uk/resources/assets/Fa...SP_QA_v6aWO.pdf


Teachers in Year 1 can continue to use the EYFSP as their assessment tool for children where they consider this to be appropriate. This will be particularly the case for children who have not obtained any or most of the ELG - scale points 4 to 8 - in a particular EYFSP scale.

http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/153446

and from the head teacher's union

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

Foundation Stage Profile and Target Setting
The Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) is a way of summing up each child`s development and learning achievement at the end of the Foundation Stage. It is based on ongoing observation and assessments in all 6 areas of learning and development. Its primary purpose is to provide Year I practitioners with reliable and accurate information about each child`s level of development at the end of the foundation stage. It is manifestly not a mechanism for outside bodies (LAs, SIPs, Ofsted) to use as a stick to berate a school`s performance or target setting procedures. It is therefore the use to which some outside bodies use such recorded information that is challenged.



A colleague from the NAA (National Assessment Agency) recently gave a presentation to NAHT Primary Committee. In it, he outlined some principles and the results so far of his research into the scale points on the Foundation Stage Profile. This is a synopsis of the main points he made.



• 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. Children with the same points score will therefore probably have a different level of achievement.



• The FSP is more about assessment for learning than average points scores.



• Judgement for FSP should be based on at least 80% coming from observation and knowledge of the child.



• There is no need to record everything and no supplementary assessments are required.



• Because of the nature of some of the scale points, confusion can exist when LAs/SIPS/Ofsted are interpreting FSP data.



• There is ongoing research into the relationship between FSP and KS1 outcomes, and it would appear that some of the links are spurious.



• NAA are allocating resources and advice to the most “inconsistent”LAs,i.e.those LAs whose knowledge of, and experience in, FSP progression is patchy. In other words, where LAs are using the data incorrectly in an attempt to “drive up” standards.



• The FSP is for organising children`s learning, not target setting.The forthcoming NAA Report will recommend training for all stakeholders, particularly in the inappropriate use of profile data. There will also be inter-LA moderation conferences. (NAHT has asked for schools to be included in these).



• Some scale points, known as “super scale points”, with research, appear to have a greater link to KS1 outcomes than others, particularly those that involve creativity, thinking and applying, rather than rote learning. Some specific scale points (the “super scale points”) seem to indicate that without them, a child is unlikely to achieve more than 2c at KS1.



• It is therefore not enough to say that the acquisition of 6 scale points is indicative as an acceptable basis for the next stage; it depends upon the particular scale points achieved.



As this is still at a research stage, and is not yet fully in the public domain, it may be prudent to move ahead with caution. However, when this is considered in terms of LA pressure and SIPs visits, as well as Ofsted, the message coming out is that none of these outside bodies should be applying undue pressure on schools with regards to FSP outcomes when discussing targets for later years` achievements. Any correlation it would appear, is currently insecure.

Personally I think it's a mistake to think about "starting" the NC and "finishing" EYFS. Surely the two things should flow seamlessly together so that no matter where the child is when they arrive in year one their learning is simply based on the next step they need to take?

The only time it matters is when you choose your assesment tool. I use the profile until I decide that the child is a level 1C, sometimes I use the profile and the APP scales simulaneously if I think the child is about to jump across to a 1C just to make sure I'm on the right track. After Easter any still on the profile switch to PIVATs.

Someone from my LA (someone who does the APP training I think) told a head at one of our cluster's schools that YR teachers should be assessing using APP now because chn will soon be on Year 1. That is a short toned down version. I hit the roof!!!!!!! Thankfully our EY advisor set her straight!

Is bad enough when heads or others who don't know keep spouting it, but when people from LA do - rarrrrrrrrgggggghhhhh!

Mind you,have heard new goverment don't like APP (can't imagine why ) and are scrapping it - hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

(I hate it by the way!)

The problem is they don't. We have two completely different assessment systems that even the creators acknowledge don't match up accurately

What is PIVATs? Just wondering

It is an assessment system you purchase unless you work for the LA who produced it (Lancashire I think) and is an extended version of the P scales used to assess SEN children

That's really useful Marion. It makes total sense. So in terms of setting targets for children at the end of KS1 are you saying that this is not possible and productive? Or do we make targets for children at the end of the autumn term of year 1? And how much progress would children be expected to make?

My schools year 2 results have been poor in the last couple of years and my head has told me its because the profile data has been so high - so with not converting from profile results this removes this problem. But obviously my school needs to measure progress in KS1 to ensure that adequate progress is being made. If children come in low then they will likely achieve lower than what is expected nationally - how do we show this?

Sorry if this is blatently obvious but I'm now to this role and trying to get my head around it! x

KST I think the idea that KS1 results are poor because EYFSP is high is a very weak a poor excuse. EYFSP is a highly moderated system and there are a miniscule amount of teacher who inflate the EYFSP scores!!! I believe the problem lies in weak transitions, Y1 teachers not building on what has gone before and low expectations - not believing the children are as capabkle as they appear from the profile scores. If Y1 and Y2 worked from the child as EYFS do and make their leanring more active and hands on and really motivate children then they will continue to make good progress. Then if Y2 administer the KS1 test papers in Jan or Feb and use the gap analysis to plan for the next steps them n again the KS1 results will improve.

Rant over - sorry!!!!

Lorna

Yes Lorna I totally agree - I didn't mean that KS1 results are low because EYFS are high but the other way round exactly as you describe. I am the reception teacher - I know my results are based on thorough assessment and are very accuratel, it pains me to see children move onto KS1 and not make the same level of progress. This is why my head wants me to ensure KS1 are making the expected level of progress so i just wanted to find out how you can work out if children have made the expected level of progress - does that make sense? If children are 1C at end of autumn term in year 1 then what would they be expected to achieve at end of KS1?

Or am I wrong in expecting there is a way to predict this? I have convinced my head and year 1 teacher to operate year 1 in a child initiated way, planning from their next steps from september - i know this is going to raise results but my school are nervous of this so will be wanting to check progress throughout ks1 to check they are on target!

x

There is an expectation nowadays from school SIPs etc that children will make two sub-levels per year so if a child is 1c in the autumn term then I would hope that they would be at least 1B by the end of Y1 and so 2B by the end of KS1

However not all children learn in a linear way but unless a child has a leanring difficulty I would expect them to be at least 2B if not 2A at the end of Y2.

The improtant thing is that children are being challenged and that teachers are planning ( in the words of Julie Fisher ) 'for the needs of the child and not the needs of the curriculum.'

Lorna

Thank you! Yes I agree with your comments about learning not being linear.

And very wise words from Julie Fisher - love her book!

Sent my profile scores off today-ony 3 children had point 6 across the board out of 22. some chn had mainly 6's and 1 or maybe 2 5's-but i didnt feel i'd seen enough child initiated. i feel that the chn are capeable if sat with a teacher and made to do the work but they wont choose to do it. kick a football around well they could do that all day.
thing is, my yr1 teacher is really going to hit the roof when she gets them-they are quite a lazy and imature class, not really ready for yr1 and i doubt very much she will use the EYFSP with them.
Our SIP is due in next week and he too will be pretty pissed off with the results and i will have to find some answers. other than the chn arent motivated and only want to run around what can i give to support my judgements.I have not been hard on the results, i feel the chn have had too many opportunities for free play and this play has been un strucutred. we have adopted the EYFS ethos. i dont really have 'hard' evidence of their learning.

i feel sick at the thought of what will face me next week.

thanks for reading

I think this is a common idea that EYFS means unstructured and allowing children to do as they wish with no focus whereas structure is very important for young children. It is important to find a balance where you as the teacher feel comfortable.
Last week I attended the Early Excellence conference (Looking Closely at Playful Learning) and felt that Pat Broadhead made a very important point - it isn't wrong to teach.

If I've made the wrong assumption about your post I apologise but I do think this is the message many reception teachers are receiving.

It might help to get a measure of perspective on this problem....

The EYFSP is a measure of current attainment matched against national criteria. If your results are accurate then it is a true reflection on the current attainment of that group and should reflect the picture of their day to day capabilities. They won't be any different in year 1 if that is the case.

HOWEVER - you also need to look at the progress the cohort have made and ask where were they (against national expectations) on entry to nursery/reception as those key transition points and look to see if the progress is there from their relative starting points. Your tracking will show this. Bear in mind that an age/stage is by definition often a year in a child's life so attainment may not change but progress will i.e a child could be in the 30 - 50 band for a year and still make progress towards security in that band.

Then the debate is: have all groups made similar progress?? Who are the groups doing less well? Boys? EMA? SEN?

The final question, and this is the hard one, is have we done enough on going analysis of standards to direct and target our teaching to narrow those gaps??

As Marion says..it is not wrong to teach. The EYFS is about learning and development and our role as educators is to enable children to do the things they can't do so that they can do them. Structure isn't about being formal, but provides a framework that aims to prevent children from the risk of underachievement and future failure.

That is where the focus of the discussion will probably lie....so I would think through those processes first so you can at least have a full and frank professional debate about how your setting will look at practice and change what isn't currently in balance.

The Learning Playing and Interacting resource book is a good starting point if you've not seen it.

Cx

I know they don't match up exactly but I do see overlaps. Once they have numbers to 10 secure (something from the EYFS profile) they move on to numbers to 20, then on to numbers to 30 (a level one NC target). For those areas where there is a huge jump (writing is one) I just invent my own objectives and expectations for the children that bridge the gap, but perhaps that's just that my brain happens to work in that way and also that my head seems to have just let me do what I like.

I use the profile until I feel the children are a 1C then I move on to APP for assessment only, I don't change the way I teach them, we still have child centred learning and an FS ethos. I actually love APP and I don't want the government to get rid of it (although again my head seems to leave me to get on with it so I have one sheet for every child and I don't spend hours collecting evidence together).

My class are the most independent and resilient bunch the school has seen in year 1 for a long time. Also I have children who I can confidently say are level 2, something which is unheard of in the school's recent history. I do constantly panic though because I also have an SEN group who are lower than anything the school has seen in a long time, but I know they have had the best possible environment this year with it being so EYFS based. I guess I'll just have to wait and see if it all comes crashing down on me when the head sees the results (Despite the fact that she generally leaves me to get on with things she is obsessed with linking profile results to NC levels to predict outcomes).


PIVATS are a Lancashire thing (guess which LEA I work for!) I forgot they aren't really used in other counties. They're linked to the P-scales and are very time consuming. I can't say I'm a huge fan, they do break things down into tiny targets, but I sometimes feel these are inappropriate for the SEN children. Also I don't like having to spend all that time doing them just to find out something I already knew (ie. what the child needs to learn next), I'd rather someone gave me credit for professional intelligence!

Can you be more specific Catma, please?

http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/242798

Thanks Marion!

Cx

Thanks--assumed that was what was being referred to but just in case I was wrong!!!!