Practitioners can be unsure about what they need to produce when a moderation dialogue is arranged. The purpose of moderation is to “ensure practitioner judgements are based on assessments of children consistent with nationally agreed exemplification and that attainment of individual scale points is a reliable, accurate and secure process” (EYFSP handbook 2008 p18). The primary focus of a moderation dialogue therefore is on exploring which scale points a child has achieved and asking ourselves, “is this what I generally expect from this child and how do I know that it is ?” Over time we build a portfolio of both planned observations and spontaneous outcomes – those moments when we go “wow!” and reach for the note pad. However there are many other ways that children’s responses and outcomes can be captured including: Annotations on plans Photos or video clips Independent work samples demonstrating application of skills Conversations – tapes/notes Notes about children’s responses during supported activities Learning journey records detailing the progress of activities Information from family members or other adults connected to the child. It is important that anything we collect tells us something about the child, so it adds to the body of knowledge that we have about them. What we record is as crucial as how we record it. Negative comments tell us little about a child. If we consider the following examples we can see that they focus primarily on what the child doesn’t do: There is an implied test which the child, in each case, appears to have failed. By reframing these observations into more positive ones we have a better picture of the child’s current capabilities, interests and skills: Where evidence builds on the knowledge of the child and focuses on what they can do rather than what they can’t do it creates a strong portfolio which can be used to evidence the range of skills found within the EYFSP scale points. These will inform the moderation dialogue and provide valuable starting points for describing and demonstrating how the child meets the criteria for the scale points awarded. All practitioners are expected to take part in an annual moderation activity with trained LA moderators. This may be either a moderation meeting with other settings or a visit to the practitioner’s setting. During moderation activity the practitioner will be asked to detail the scale points awarded to the sample children selected and share the range of evidence which underpins those scale points. The role of the moderator is to assess how accurately the practitioner matches this evidence to the criteria for the individual scale points as described in the EYFSP handbook. Through discussion, the match between the evidence and the scale points is agreed as accurate or not. Evidence is defined in the EYFSP handbook as follows: “Any material, knowledge of the child, anecdotal incident, results of observation or information from additional sources that support the overall picture of the child’s development. There is no requirement that it should always be formally recorded or documented.” (EYFSP handbook 2008 p12) The annual “Assessment and Reporting Arrangements 2012” document gives further information about what is required: “There is no requirement that evidence should always be formally recorded or documented. Practitioners may choose to record specific evidence in order to secure their own judgements, but it is their final assessment of the child, based on all of the evidence (documented or not), that informs the completion of the EYFS Profile. It is this judgement that is moderated by the local authority.” An additional source of evidence, those things we just know about a child’s behaviours or outcomes because that is what we always see, is frequently underestimated. This knowledge of the child and what they typically do will often demonstrate attainment of a scale point very effectively. Anecdotal descriptions of outcomes and observations in different contexts can form a large part of the actual evidence base. It is important to make sure that this is not speculation about skills we may consider a child is capable of, but is a verbal description of concrete evidence. This known evidence can frequently paint the richest picture of the child’s capabilities. The practitioner must therefore be able to make a professional judgement about what type of evidence is the best match for any aspect that is being moderated. If we consider the question “How do I know?” in relation to many of the Personal, Social and Emotional Development scale points then we see that our knowledge of everyday behaviours may be mainly based on anecdotal evidence. For example, the exemplification for Social Development Scale Point 5 “Forms good relationships with adults and peers” is exemplified as “the child forms good relationships with both adults and children within the setting, by being helpful and friendly”. If we know our children well, we would as a minimum, be able to describe the different ways a child shows they have positive relationships with others. Other scale points on the other hand will need a wider range of captured evidence such as writing samples to evidence the Communication, Language and Literacy Development Writing scale points 5 or 6. There have been many myths about how much evidence is expected; often it is believed that there must be 3 written pieces to prove each point. There is no requirement for a set number of observations to establish attainment of a scale point. This merely creates an unnecessary burden on the practitioner and undermines the original pedagogy of the EYFSP. If the evidence base is supported by professional judgement and a secure knowledge of the exemplification in the EYFSP handbook, there is no need for recorded observations for all 117 scale points. By reflecting on how they will see, hear and capture the child’s outcomes, linked to the teaching and learning in the setting, the practitioner can make an informed judgement about just what types of evidence they will need to gather to suit different scale points across the 13 scales over time. The range of curriculum aspects within single scale points also needs to be considered in deciding what types of evidence is required. Many of the Knowledge and Understanding of the World, Physical Development and Creative Development scale points contain two or even three curriculum aspects, e.g. Knowledge and Understanding of the World, Scale Point 6: “Finds out about past and present events in own life, and in those of family members and other people they know, begins to know about own culture and beliefs and those of other people.” This scale point contains both the “Time” and “Communities” aspects of the curriculum. If the practitioner has not considered both curriculum aspects as separate elements as they observe children, the range of evidence to demonstrate achievement of the scale point will not be enough to award it. It can also take longer to build up a full picture of a child’s skills within the broader scale points due to the wider range of outcomes needed to fully evidence them. The current EYFSP requires that every element written into the scale point is considered before it can be awarded. For example, Creative Development scale point 8, “Expresses and communicates ideas, thoughts and feelings using a range of materials, suitable tools, imaginative play, role play, movement, designing and making, and a variety of songs and musical instruments” although based solely in one aspect of Creative Development, contains several different elements within the scale point covering the following outcomes: Expressing ideas AND thoughts AND feelings creatively using: different materials different tools role play movement designing and making skills song music Thus we can see that the range of different outcomes needed to fully evidence this scale point will not be acquired quickly. This also has implications for the quality of the provision and the learning experiences that are provided for the children to ensure that they are able to develop the necessary skills, knowledge and concepts as well as apply their learning into their independent activity, which in turn will ensure that practitioners are able to see the outcomes which form evidence of attainment. As we have already noted, the purpose of moderation is to quality assure the accuracy of Practitioner Judgements so that there can be confidence in any resulting data. Alongside the observational evidence there are several additional factors which a practitioner must consider to demonstrate the accuracy of their judgements during the moderation discussion. Firstly the majority of the evidence provided must be based primarily on independent activity. The focus on independence ensures that the learning is embedded and truly owned. The EYFSP handbook describes this as follows: “Judgements are made through assessing behaviour that a child demonstrates consistently and independently in a range of situations. This behaviour will need to demonstrate the child’s confidence and ownership of the specific knowledge, skill or concept being assessed.” (EYFSP handbook 2008 p8) For current moderation purposes this is currently defined as being 80% of the evidence coming from observations of independent outcomes, with around 20% of the evidence coming from adult directed activity. Secondly the EYFSP is designed to be a rounded view of the child’s achievements. The handbook stresses the need for the involvement of parents and other carers in the assessment process: “Accurate assessment will depend on contributions from a range of perspectives including the child’s and should be drawn from all adults who have significant interactions with the child (since all adult interactions with children influence their development and learning). These may include records and any formal or informal discussions with adults involved with the child. Adults with different roles will have different insights and these must be drawn upon. Assessment must actively engage parents and/or other primary carers, the first educators of children, or it will offer an incomplete picture. Accurate assessment requires a two-way flow of information between setting(s) and home, and reviews of the child’s achievements should include those demonstrated at home.” (EYFSP handbook 2008 p8) Without this 360° view of the child we are at risk of under assessing skills or aptitudes that may not be fully evident in the setting, yet the child is quite capable of demonstrating. In particular for children who are new to English or have additional needs, the information from parents about their skills, seen in a more secure home environment will ensure that practitioners are truly seeing the child at their most capable. Without this dimension to the assessment picture, the moderator would question the security of any resulting data. “Completion of an EYFS profile by the practitioner alone will offer only a partial and incomplete picture of the child’s attainment.” (EYFSP handbook 2008 p9) Lastly, the role of internal or school to school moderation activity is crucial in ensuring the security of data. This enables the school to quality assure and verify its own data and establish the reliability of the complete assessment for the cohort. LA moderation looks at a limited range of scales, generally over a cycle of 3 years so the role of school based moderation activity will be explored by the moderator as part of their discussion. The moderation visit can be arranged in many different ways. Some LAs will have pre-visits, others will not. Some will spend half a day, others longer. All LAs however are subject to the Standards and Testing Agency (STA) guidance on the protocols of moderation. The role of the moderator as outlined is to establish accuracy. If the practitioner is able to demonstrate accuracy for a small sample then it is expected that there will be accuracy across the whole cohort. The main activity during a moderation visit should be the dialogue between practitioner and moderator. Without this dialogue the moderator is unable to examine the full range of evidence, recorded or unrecorded. Any joint observation would be to explore how a practitioner interprets their observations. After the moderation there should be feedback to the Head Teacher and a written report. If there are concerns raised this report should clearly outline any actions that are required to ensure data accuracy, including further moderation where necessary. The moderation process should be a supportive one. Moderation is not a test. Although it is expected to be rigorous, it should also enable practitioners to know that their judgements are in line with those made both locally and nationally and allow practitioners to develop their practice. Fundamentally it is in both the child’s and the settings interest to ensure that data is as accurate as possible. If children are to sustain progress in year 1, then those teachers must be able to rely on the data that they are given as starting points for their planning. As a statutory assessment the EYFSP data also forms an important part of the Ofsted Inspection process. Moderation in all forms provides the validation of this accuracy. By building an appropriate and manageable evidence base the practitioner is able to engage in the moderation process with confidence. The answer to how much evidence is needed is a simple one: “How much do you need?”
Recommended Comments
There are no comments to display.