Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop." (Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll) Assessment in the EYFS is inextricably linked not only to cognitive development but also to a child's physical and emotional development. Unlike the National Curriculum, which measures attainment in a simpler, linear manner with expectations of minimum progression, the EYFS is more complex. Further complications exist when we try to identify the expectations for children's outcomes at different transitional points. So what do we need to consider and how do we make best use of the assessment information we gather? Begin at the beginning "Every child is a competent learner from birth who can be resilient, capable, confident and self-assured." (EYFS - A Unique Child) With the arrival of the EYFS framework for the first time there was a framework that supported professionals working with children from birth right through to the end of reception. However it lacked specific, detailed guidance on the full range of assessments that practitioners might reasonably be expected to make. In summary it states: "Practitioners should: make systematic observations and assessments of each child's achievements, interests and learning styles; use these observations and assessments to identify learning priorities and plan relevant and motivating learning experiences for each child; match their observations to the expectations of the early learning goals." (EYFS statutory Framework 2008) The first two points are integral parts of the way in which effective practitioners work. However the third bullet point reflects much that was not made explicit in the 2008 EYFS documentation and it is here that the cause of the confusion found in settings lies. In order to really understand this third expectation we need to define the difference between formative and summative assessments and understand the different roles that they play. The tension between these differing forms of assessment has been recently captured in a DfE review published in August 2010: "Alongside the debates on the role of play in learning have developed discussions on the role of assessment in learning (Gipps 2002), where opinion tends to be more divided. The Early Years sector has traditionally favoured formative rather than summative assessment (Nutbrown 2006), and has fought to sustain a view of the individual child which positively values any knowledge, skills and attributes which can be identified through observation, rather than itemising, negatively, those skills and areas of knowledge which a child has not yet achieved. This view of individualised learning based on formative assessment is held to be in conflict with a more normative developmental view of what children in general should be expected to achieve by a certain number of months or years of age, and this tension is present in the EYFS framework, which generates a Profile (EYFSP) against which many children may be measured and found wanting." (Research Report DFE-RR029 Practitioners' experiences of the EYFS 2010) I would argue that we could reconcile the tension found between these two forms of assessment if we understand and use them for the right purposes. Formative assessment provides practitioners with much of the detailed day-to-day knowledge they gather about how children are making sense of the world around them. Indeed the EYFS gives us useful formative assessment suggestions in the ''Look, Listen and Note" sections of the six areas of learning and development. Information, gathered through observations, is often recorded but can also simply be the ongoing, professional knowledge that a practitioner has. For example, a practitioner observing a child coming happily into the setting each day knows this is the case without needing to record it. This use of observation is at the heart of effective practice and is what drives the day-to-day experiences a child is offered. The cycle of observe, assess, respond can take place in a moment or over a longer period of time, but essentially it is the process by which a child is supported from emergence to security in their skills, knowledge and understanding. Since the EYFS framework came into force this practice has been firmly embedded as an expectation in all settings and is generally well used. In my experience summative assessment is less secure in general practice. This is the process of aligning the observations of a child or cohort to national expectations in order to identify attainment at any given time. In the case of the EYFS we have 2 structures we might use: the EYFS ages and stages of development and Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP). Both give us nationally referenced criteria against which we are able to match our knowledge of the child. One is relevant to mapping the milestones and transitional points along the way whilst the other gives us a final picture, which can be compared against local and national outcomes. The recent National Strategies publication "Progress Matters" gave greater clarity about the meaning of this process when it stated: "An important aspect of gathering and using information is having a clear oversight of the progress made by children in a setting. Leaders and managers need to step back from the detailed day-to-day focus on individual observation and assessment and undertake periodic, systematic reviews to see how well children are learning and developing across all areas of the EYFS." Progress Matters. National Strategies 2009 I believe this process lies at the heart of the third bullet point. We need to know how children have progressed from their starting points. We also need to know how well children are achieving compared to their peers. Without that information, for example, we cannot evaluate how well we are narrowing the gap in attainment between children more likely to find themselves in the bottom 20% and the rest of their peers. Summative assessment is not a case of creating a negative list of failings. Used well it supports practitioners in being able to systematically identify key gaps in skills and knowledge that can then be appropriately targeted. This ensures all children, especially those in more vulnerable groups, make the right progress and achieve more than they would if underachievement is left unchallenged.. So what are the best ways to use summative assessments to inform both our knowledge of the unique child and to inform our overall knowledge of how well we are doing as a setting? For most practitioners the key milestone assessments are "on entry" to the setting and then at transitional points within or between settings. As well as these minimum key points, there can often be periodic or termly updates. These summative assessments can be used to provide the setting with the answer to the frequently posed question, "How well are children doing and how do you know?" "On entry" assessment is in essence the identification of the developmental stage a child has attained, at any transitional point. This judgement will ideally be informed by information from parents/carers and professionals who have previously worked with the child to provide an accurate picture. There is much debate about the use receiving settings make of the records that are passed up to them. I would argue that accurate summative assessments are the most crucial. Knowing what a child has achieved and trusting the professional judgement of others is essential. This is most effective if the assessment judgements are moderated to ensure consistency. Working with colleagues to moderate outcomes within settings, or where possible across settings, strengthens the judgements made. This builds confidence in any data that is produced. If any judgements made are based predominately on independent outcomes and behaviours then they will describe accurately where the child is on their learning journey. At the point of transition this enables practitioners to support continued progress more effectively. The starting point for planning is more secure and children are less at risk of slippage whilst their new key persons try to work out where they are. "Go on till you come to the end: then stop." Once we know accurately where our children are, in order to fully answer the question "How well are our children doing?" it is helpful to consider what Ofsted have described as "national expectations". Clearly there are no national averages for young children. They can develop in fast ascents and then plateau for periods of time as they consolidate their new skills. However it is helpful to know if children are attaining levels of development that are appropriate for their age. For example, as children enter nursery at age 3 (36 months) we might expect typical attainment to be broadly emerging within the 30 - 50 stage. This can be more easily seen if we consider the overlapping ages and stages of development as part of a time line. (Diagram 1) Looking at the stages of development in this way it is possible to identify the skill set we might reasonably expect a child to be demonstrating at different ages as they move towards the expectations of the Early Learning Goals (ELGs). Using this as a broad benchmark it is then possible to map groups or individuals at lower or higher developmental levels in any area of learning and development. This information serves several purposes: To identify how well individuals are achieving and progressing against their peers, not just within the setting, To identify how well sub groups are achieving and progressing against their peers, for example by comparing gender groups or children using English as an additional language, To identify possible gaps in provision or teaching that may be limiting outcomes for children who are at risk of underachievement. By looking at the time line as a progression from birth to the end of reception we can also see the amount of progress that could reasonably be expected or the distance a child needs to travel to be in line with national expectations. For a child at 4 years old who is entering reception just within the 40 - 60+ band, a minimum expectation or target would be for that child when leaving reception to have made the step into securing the 40 - 60+ band in that year. In this way we can be more specific about longer-term next steps, and particularly in school-based settings linking targets to those clearly defined EYFS milestones can be helpful and relate more consistently with day-to-day practice and planning. The final measure of attainment in the EYFS is the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile at the end of the reception year. For schools in particular this is the numerical measure that will be used by Ofsted to evaluate "How good are outcomes for children?" This judgement is reliant on 3 key questions: Where were the children when they joined the setting? Where were the children at the end of reception? How much progress have all children, including vulnerable groups in the setting, made relative to those starting points? Many settings are unsure how to demonstrate this, as the EYFSP assessment scales do not appear to sit easily within the EYFS framework. It is helpful however to look at the developmental pitch of the EYFSP scale points. Clearly the scale points labelled 4 - 8 are reflecting the aspirations of the ELGs. Those labelled 1 - 3 are below the ELGs and 9 clearly above. If we look to the Development Matters descriptors in the 40 - 60+ band the ELGs indicate a securing of that stage. Thus for our child entering reception at national expectations just within the 40 - 60+ band we could reasonably expect a minimum EYFSP outcome that reflects the securing of the skills in that stage. In EYFSP terms this would indicate scoring 6 or more points. (Diagram 2) Children who enter below national expectations clearly have further to travel if they are to meet the aspirations of the ELGs. Enabling more children at the end to achieve good overall outcomes against the EYFSP than might have been expected at the beginning is clearly the mark of a setting that effectively supports children in making good or better progress, and it is this that Ofsted look for in making their judgements. For some settings with high outcomes, a grading of satisfactory has come as a shock, yet demonstrably the children have made little progress given their on entry starting points. By taking time to look in detail at all children's progress over time, settings are able to evaluate just how much difference they are making to their overall development and attainment. They can identify if children are making progress from their starting point, yet still at risk of lower attainment. They can see where boys are doing less well and plan to address this. They can demonstrate that children with additional needs, despite low outcomes have made good progress. Without this depth of analysis it is easy to become complacent and "coast", believing that what has always been done will suit all children. Settings that achieve outstanding judgements from Ofsted are those that embed this systematic approach to quality Improvement, ensuring that all their children are making good progress. In this way all settings can play their part in narrowing the gap of underachievement that we know exists for many children from a very early age. That third, rather innocuous bullet point is possibly the most important one of all.
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.