Data Return 24th June.

[Guest]

hey,

just completed my data for this year and printed off the key questions part of TT. My data seems to be higher than the national average of 2009 (not sure why it isnt compared to data from 2010?!). Which is fine, as my class are quite high achievers. But am now worried in case they are too high? I am confident in my judgements, but dont want to make KS1's job harder.......?

How high is too high?

Has anyone else found this? was 2009 very low for the whole nation?

 

Thanks in advance for any help!

x

[Guest]

Having similar problems - I agree that the 2009 data seems confusingly low!

S x

[catma]

but dont want to make KS1's job harder.......?

KS1 job to build on the skills assessed in EYFSP regardless of what level they are at!

 

If children are working securely in the ELGs ie 6 or more within all scales in an area then they are working at national expectations. If year 1 think that's too high then they have a bit of a problem I'd say.

 

 

Can't access 2010 at the mo - it's at work but do know that 2010 national for 78+ including 6+ in all psed/clld was 56%.

 

Cx

Edited June 26, 2011 by catma

[Guest]

Ive sent off my data now and have been told (at the last minute) that my data meant I was predicting 63% of my class would be level 3!!! I asked in which subject and was told "all of them!". This was followed by me reminding smt that my data cannot really be used like this, that I was still happy with my data but not their predictions.

 

I have looked at my data a lot (again) since then and have discovered that they have assumed anyone with an ave of 7.3 across all areas is a level 3 prediction! Not sure how that works out at all given 6 profile points = 2b and 7 is 2a according to the document. Most of these high areas come from 7s and 8s in PRN. But that area is much easier to achieve in......

My data is high, but they can do it!

 

Last yr it was too low, this year too high - Im beginning to feel like Goldilocks.. :-)

[catma]

SLTs behaving like this drive me slightly demented!!

 

A report/study of matched EYFS and KS1 data by QCDA a few years back found that with 6+ points a child could go on and get anything between w and level 3 at KS1!!

 

Of course the better outcome the higher % chance of a higher outcome and from memory a child with 8+ had something like a 90%+ chance of a level 3 but some children with totals below 3 were found to go on and get a level 3, albeit a much smaller percentage.

 

I'd say your data was securely in line with expectations and your children are attaining within the expected outcome (ie securely within the ELGs) for the end of the key stage - well done! In my LA we now have at/above national outcomes so we would be expecting that as standard for our children (in a very deprived part of the UK I must add.) It would be useful to look at their starting points to contextualise your outcomes against progress made.

 

I think one solution lies in having regular internal moderation discussions with SLT so that there are no "surprises" either way when the data is sent. By submitting data the HT is in fact confirming that this is the data for those children and must stand by it. The LA would have a pretty dim view of a HT that hadn't finalised and agreed the submission before hand.

 

Not sure how that works out at all given 6 profile points = 2b and 7 is 2a according to the document.

But not according to the EYFSP handbook and all QCDA publications - there are no correlations and none should be made. With Tickell, if accepted, there will be a closer overlap but until then it's really not going to work in an exact way.

 

All you can realistically say is that if a child is on track and at national expectations then the minimum you should expect is for them to be on track by the end of KS1 - but a lot depends on 2 years of quality teaching first!

 

Cx

[Guest]

THANKS

I completely agree with you. I only added the 2a/2b remark as that is the only thing i could base their prediction on and even then their prediction was much higher!

I have spent the weekend finding bits and bobs to take to them (as apparently I have to now justify my reasoning - even though its too late to change it), but have yet to find something concrete, that I havent alraedy said myself.

 

Is there a recent document I can point them to which would back up what we have been saying in a succinct way?

 

Amanda

[catma]

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/s...Page1/DFE-RR034

 

Section 6

 

Hope that helps. There is also the front sections of the EYFSP handbook which spells out the no correlation message in quite clear terms!

 

cx

[Guest]

Just to add, I am concerned thet my profile has come out so much 'higher' than last year's too. Should be delighted but I am afraid it may come back to haunt me if they don't achieve in Y2, Y6.

EY consultant, head, SIP all say I have been too hard on them in the past, don't feel I have assessed differently but they have come out well this year...we'll just have to wait and see...another Goldilocks

[Guest]

I understand your dilema. Ditto to everything you said. Hope it works out for you.

I'm meant to have a chat with year 1 teacher for transition and go over the "predictions" and correct them. But as much as I know my class now, without my crystal ball, I cannot correctly predict how they will do! so its just another incorrect prediction to add to the pile when there shouldnt be a pile to start with!!

Good luck Iri

[Guest]

This year we hope to get round the Year 1 transition issue by having the reception teacher take the class up. Every other year there has been muttering that children have been 'over scored'. However if your year 1 class is run in a completely different way to the reception then often children do completely differently.

 

You need to be clear what the judgements you have made mean. We found that KS 1 teachers don't really bother with the FS curriculum so if a child gets a high score in writing they expect beautiful handwriting correctly spelt with proper punctuation, whereas they may not necessarily have all of those unless they were a 9. We have done a lot of work on how profile scores relate to NC levels with staff. The most useful tool for us was sending up a writing sample for every child.

[Guest]

that is good advice. thank you.