Eyfsp To Nc Levels

[Guest]

Dear All

 

I was just wondering what different schools do to show progression from EYFS to the rest of the school. I think the progress children make in EYFS gets lost because it does not link exactly to NC levels, so tracking tends to just start from 1c. I know some schools convert EYFSP scores into p-scales but I don't think this is right!

 

Thank you!

[KST]

p-scales are for children in ks1 who are SEN, not children who are working towards level 1. In the past my school has converted EYFSP scores into NC levels which is also wrong. What we are now going to do is to not make a judgement of where children are at NC level until the end of the autumn term in year 1. In the autumn term children will continue to be assessed against the profile if they haven't met enough points, and those children who are ready will start using the national curriculum. After the the autumn term, children who are still working towards ELG will therefore SEN and can be assessed against P-scales.

 

That's my take on it but interested to see if others agree!! The profile is to inform year 1 teachers so is the best assessment for them to use to aid planning.

[Guest]

yup ours is the same as KST th yr 1 teacher continues to assess according to the fsp where needed for the first term x

[Guest]

I see what you mean about using NC levels from Y1.

 

What I was interested in is whether any schools have a system that tracks how much progress children make from when they start right through to when they leave. At the moment it feels like we track progress in EYFS and then progress from Y1-Y6 but there is not much link made between the 2 systems...

[MrsL]

KST, that is what we have been doing, not giving levels or predicted levels until January as thats what Early Years advised us to do. Then our SIP came along in October and asked what their levels were and what they were predicted for the end of year! Now we don't know what to do this time!

[Marion]

This is the information provided to heads by the NAHT

 

 

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.