Jump to content
Home
Forum
Join Us
Articles
About Us
Tapestry

Points 1-3


 Share

Recommended Posts

I hope someone can help - am feeling at a bit of a loss. I know that points 1-3 have to be achieved before any of points 4-8 are awarded but do they have to be achieved in order? My feeling was that they usually were but didn't have to be. Now I'm wondering why I think that.

 

If anyone can firstly let me know what the answer is and secondly point me in the direction of where I can see it written down that would be great. I've scanned the EYFS framework and the profile handbook and can only find it stated that points 4-8 are not hierachichal or linear but nothing about whether points 1-3 are!

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://orderline.education.gov.uk/gempdf/1...sessment6th.pdf

 

This is the guidance issued on points 1-3 in 2009 by QCDA.

 

"In typical patterns of child development, it is highly unlikely that a child would attain the early learning goals (scale points 4-8) in a scale, without first attaining scale points 1-3, since these are developmental steps towards scale points 4-8. The EYFS profile handbook provides detailed exemplification of the meaning of each scale point. The vast majority of children will be assessed in an accumulative developmental way, attaining scale point 1, then 2, then 3 and then scale points 4-8."

 

"Summary

In the majority of cases, a child will achieve the developmental steps represented by scale points 1-3 before moving on to the Development matters early learning goals represented by scale points 4-8. It is essential that scale points 1-3 are used appropriately to provide a true and accurate reflection of a unique child.

If a child’s attainment of scale points does not appear to be following this pattern, the anomaly in

scale point scores should be investigated by both practitioner and moderator to establish whether it arises from misinterpretation of the meaning of the scale points, or is a rare genuine exception to usual patterns.

Scale points 1-3 should be used to describe a particular level of development in a specific scale at the end of the EYFS, namely a child who is working towards the early learning goals and therefore will need an appropriate framework planned from Development matters which will support them in their next steps towards the early learning goals in year 1."

 

Cx

Edited by catma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

your are right 'hello kitty' the early years foundation stage profile (EYFSP) is for the end of reception assessment only and is to be used in reception for assssemnt purposes only and is completed at the end of the accidemic year the child is 5. The early years foundation stage practical guidance is for planning for all settings. The EYFSP is the bold bits in the EYFS guidance. we have just had our moderation information meeting and this is always stressed that nuserys do not fill in or use the EYFSP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that depends on how you are guided - it's not a statutory "rule" as such. The EYFSP has to be completed in the summer of Reception but there's nothing to stop anyone using it across the year. The EYFSP will continue to be used as an on entry assessment for F2 because it's the easiest way of doing it and if nursery practitioners can support that process then it's often all to the good. As moderation manager in my LA I have no problem with settings using the EYFSP at the point of transition as long as they are clear about the developental links of the 1-3 vs 4 - 8 and apply the same rigour and use of the exemplification as is used at the end of the year. This is where things fall apart I feel. We do a lot of work around moderation at this point with our FS leads to build shared understanding, especially where the school only has F2.

If children are capable of demonstrating attainment in those pre ELG skills then whether you use the EYFSP descriptors or the Dev matters descriptors to match the skills to at the start of F2, I can't really see a difference as long as either are done with rigour and shared agreement of how children meet the expectations independently.

 

Cx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have been given a target by the HT that 80% children achieve the scale points 1-3 in PSRN before they leave us. At the time we went with it but it doesn't match with the EYFS and we feel unjustly criticised as around half of our children left us still aged 3 and so although most were in 40-60, those that were still in 30-50 were still within their age band IYSWIM. Yet we've been pulled up for the children coming in below average as they haven't achieved 1-3.

Help! Who is right in this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difficulty is that the EYFSP was derived from the previous EYFS framework not the 2008 version. Scale point 1 was the yellow stepping stone and so linked more to nursery on entry, points 2 and 3 linked to the blue/green stepping stones, but also to different aspects of the curiculum so you could have a point 2 which was dealing with self care and a point 3 which deals with behaviour (made those up but hopefully that makes sense) so they are developmenatlly hierarchical but ossibly in different things.

 

half of our children left us still aged 3
If the children are still 3 would they be going into nursery? They'd be 4 as a minimum if going into reception so at least 48 months...hence I would expect them to be secure 30 - 50 and emerging 40 - 60 so somewhere between 2 to 3 points would developmentally reflect this at the right level of expectations. Clearly 3 points would make them more secure and on track than 2 as this puts them just below the ELGs or in EYFS terms they've got a year to secure 40 - 60+ and achieve a good overall outcome ie 78+ points and 6+ in all CLLD/PSED.

 

Cx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. (Privacy Policy)