Turning Profile Points Into Projected Levels

[queline]

I have heard that this is possible i.e. a child achieving point 9s will potentially acheive Level 3 at KS1 SATs. Does anybody know anything about this or do they do it? Would appreciate any help, i'm an NQT in a small school and my head has been asking me about it, I have no idea where to start!

[Shiny]

Hi queline

 

I work at a preschool, but am also a school governor and this has always been a hot topic of debate. I am Foundation Stage Governor and I spend a while every year defending the FSP points, especially when the KS1 results don't tally up. Again round hole, square peg situation. Don't know if this will help

 

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/f...145599/#1152413

 

Shiny

[Susan]

Look at the NAA for guidance. There isnt a match although alot of people are still being required to find one.

[emmajess]

I went on a couple of courses, one last week, one in the autumn term, which were talking about linking children's results in CLL with their results for year 2 SATS. We saw graphs that related the two - apparently the CLL score links with all the KS1 SATS results, even Maths, but the link is only accurate in up to 50 % of cases.

The course was on the evaluating school performance e-module which you should be able to get from DCSF - the ref is 03861-2006EXE-EN-01. It's got loads of useful stuff (but kind of horrid cos all about data rather than children) on it about explaining the eprofiles and value added and everything to the rest of your staff who aren't in Foundation Stage and to governors. Also helps you use some of the data to actually help the children in your class.

But that 'up to 50%' seems to be the best they can do, as theres so much that is different about practice and children and assessment and curriculum... I could go on... in FS and KS1.

 

Don't know if any of that was helpful. I'd talk to your Early Years advisors!!! (And all the other amazing people on the forum!)

[catma]

There is no correlation between FSP outcomes and future KS1 scores, or as a wise man said, they'll score anything between w and level 3.

 

Statistically there is no significant correlation from work done by the NAA.

 

If a child is doing as they should then with continued quality first teaching it's not unreasonable they should carry on making progress and attain where they ought to be. However FSP and KS1 measure things completely differently or that just are different so there is no specific relationship.

Cx

[Guest]

In the link posted by Shiny it states that a child scoring 8 on the FSP might reasonably be expected to score a Level 3 at SATs whilst a child who scores 6 might be expected to score a Level 2b. This makes it look as if each point on the profile equates to a projected sub-level on the National Curriculum at the end of KS1:

8 = 3

7 = 2a

6 = 2b

5 = 2c

4 = 1a

3 = 1b

2 = 1c

1 = W

 

However, NAA says that there isn't a correlation between Profile scores and SATs levels and my LEA after initially peddling a link between profile scores and SATs targets is now saying there isn't one. Where the hell all of that leaves us I don't know! If the powers that be can't agree and are presenting conflicting evidence then what are we meant to do? I do set targets for SATs based on profile scores but then you find yourself in the position of marking the profile hard so as to make the value-added look good and not set unreasonable targets for Y1 and Y2 teachers. This is fine but then you get County on your back about your low profile scores...aarrrggghhhh.

 

I've had a bad day. Can you tell? The cashier job at Tesco's is looking attractive...

[catma]

I think it's fair to say the powers that be (NAA) have been very clear on this from the start to be honest and have sent many letters to LAs to that effect - but where people keep insisting there's a link and trying to create ones it ends up muddying the waters.

 

my 6 points across all areas will be different to someone elses so how can anyone say we are at the same starting point?

 

Why can't we use the FSP as it was intended and stop trying to add on "extras" that were never there!!!!!

Cx

[Guest]

Hi Catma. What was the original point of the FSP? That's not meant to be an aggressive question - I am genuinely interested and would appreciate clarification as my experience in Reception doesn't go back to the inception of the FSP. If its original purpose was to assess children's attainment then I haven't got a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the 'bulllying' that goes on that children should score 6. If your children don't then LEAs seem to start making tutting noises (mine certainly does). This seems to me to 'force' teachers into giving children 6 because that's what's 'expected' of them: they should score 6 so we'll give them 6 and add another one on so we're better than average. I have no idea how any of us are ever meant to get off this ridiculous merry-go-round now. The system of 'children should score this' works better at the end of KS1 and beyond because then there are set criteria and stringent moderation for checking that judgements are accurate.

 

I met a teacher the other day and she swore that she recently went on a FSP training course where they were advocating what you could tick off from having TAUGHT an activity rather than evaluating what the children had actually LEARNT. I don't want to be a part of a system like that and actually want to stop teaching Reception because I feel 'forced' to not have rigorous, evaluative assessment procedures in place.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Guest

[catma]

Hi Moose - I agree, it scares me sometimes what people do in their interpretation of the fsp, I worked with one teacher who had made up all these arbitrary rules before a child could attain a certain point - none of them being criteria in the handbook! anyway, the original purpose was to assess attainment at the end of FS against the FS curriculum (the only time children will ever be assessed across the entire curriculum statutorily), to inform parents and to inform y1 on the next steps in their learning (see continuing the learning journey for the exemplification of what that is supposed to look like)

 

The 6 thing has developed over the last couple of years as we have gathered national data. the real focus of 6 being a "good level of attainment" is if a child gets that across all 6 areas. that would indicate a child who is working securely within the elgs (ie where they should be against national expectations) but who may still have areas to develop or consolidate in yr1. Each childs "weaknesses" will be different though so thats why the concept of the individual learning journey continuing in yr1 is the real focus of fsp information. However getting "6" in some peoples eyes has become the be all and end all of fsp outcomes i think. For a child who started from no pre school, summer born and little english on entry getting 4 or 5 could still be an achievement!! And the studies so far don't show that getting high or low scores at fsp has any correlation on what you go on to attain at the end of ks1, low attaining chn in fs go on to get level 3s and vice versa so trying to use it as a predictor I believe is flawed and could lead to under expectations for some children who are written off by the age of 5 as "under achieving" when in fact they got 4 - 5 scale points and are working within the elgs! However as a broad expectation a child who is getting those magical 78 points+ could reasonably be expected if the conditions are favourable to continue to make reasonable progress under the NC and get to the national expectations, mas o menos, ie somewhere in level 2b+.

 

Thats the other thing about fsp - we have children starting from so many different starting points we aren't comparing like with like, unlike ks1 where all children will have to have had (in the main) 2 years of compulsory schooling before their sats assessments are completed. In fs we are simply marking for the first time under statute where each child individually has got to. They then go on to be taught within the national curriculum framework before being assessed under that framework.

 

Cx

[queline]

Thank you everyone for your help, i'm even more confused hee he !! No, seriously you have all been very helpful and i will pass on all information to my head. I really appreciate it

Personally though, how can you possibly predict what a child can achieve over the duration of two years+?? Even if high quality teaching is maintained, other factors could easily alter a child's progress. I love to see the children's progress but putting such expected 'pressure' on yourself as a teacher for that child to achieve that 'predicted' level and the child, just seems so silly at such a young age. But hey ho, what do i know?!