Guest Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Hi all. My team and I are wondering how you all code evidence. With the old profile grid we would number each piece of evidence and then write that number against the profile point- that worked. We have tried doing the same with the new eyfs but against all the DM statements and it's just not working. Considering there was suppose to be 'less paperwork' we are not feeling that at the moment. It's taking us hours and we haven't got hours! So my questions are- do you code or do you just collate evidence in a special book? If you do code how do you do it- against all DM statements or just against ELGs? Can I add that we have 3 reception classes and we know our children and can confidently talk about them so do we need to be able to show that certain evidence meets certain criteria or as long as we can show examples to back up our comments is that enough. Sorry for all the questions so early but it's driving me and my team mad!! Thanks Becs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catma Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Since the start of the EYFSP (and I see nothing to indicate it will change)the definition of evidence has always been everything that is known about the child whether recorded or not. Recorded evidence is to help you recall what you saw or heard and exemplify/support the overall judgement you make. The principles of the EYFSP aren't changing, just the way of reporting the final outcome. Rather than trying to evidence against each statement (which would be treating it as a tick list really) wouldn't it be better to simply sort evidence collected into aspects and then when you do your summary judgements (half termly? Termly?) reflect on the range of eveidence you have, against the spirit of the age/stage descriptors in their entirely and make your judgement from that. Single pieces of evidence don't give the depth of security which you get from reviewing evidence across a range of contexts over time anyway. If a child was not yet in the ELGs I would be looking for evidence that they were taking the develomental steps towards them in/from the age/stage I've assessed them in currently. Otherwise it's a bit like assessing all KS1 children continuously against level 2 As for coding - I'd note what aspect and any other aspects the observation relates to but I'd know that when I looked at it later anyway so maybe I wouldn't! Cx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green hippo Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 We have a simple table with 22-36 months, 30-50 months, 40-60+ months, ELGs and Exceeding across the top and all the aspects as rows down the side (we add a separate sheet for SEN if needed). We then chronologically number the observations and put the number in the corresponding box in the table e.g. obs number 1 evidence for 30-50 months in PSE and 22-36 months PD so a circled number 1 goes in these 2 boxes on the table. As long as it's done regularly then it doesn't take too long at all. We then use this evidence plus our knowledge of the children to make a judgement for summative assessment. As Catma says the written evidence does not immediately indicate a level of attainment but it's everything you know about that child. Good Luck x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Hi Green Hippo. Is it possible for you to upload a document to look at? Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millhill Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) On advise from my LA advisor, I have stopped cross referencing my evidence to the DMs/ELGs and I do not highlight the DM statements. I now do it a bit like how Catma has suggested. I look at all evidence (including my own knowledge of the child) and make a 'best-fit' judgement as to where the child is in each of the 17 aspects. I am then required (by the LA) to make a judgement as to which DM age band the child is emerging, within or consolidating. I find it much less time consuming and I don't need the cross referencing to make a well-informed judgement (I never did need it, I just thought that is what I had to do to prove myself). So, now I am spending much less time cross referencing, which gives me much more time to plan for the individual child. Edited October 29, 2012 by millhill 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green hippo Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) Yes of course. The one I'm uploading doesn't have 'exceeding' on, so you will need to add that if you want it on. progress chart.doc Hope you find it helpful, Green hippo x Edited October 29, 2012 by green hippo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts