FSP scores are in- not happy

[dreamgirl]

Our LA FSP scores are in and I feel,a bit deflated and worried. Our score was 41% GLD which was in line with the pilot score so I didn't feel too bad. But now I have received our LA scores and they fluctuate a lot from 30 % to 80% GLD. The national average is 51%. So straight away we are quite below the national average, whereas usually we are on par with it. Also the schools that have scored 80% in our LA- are they really telling us that they are 30% higher than national in a year when the bar has been significantly raised, when last year, they were only a little higher than national. I don't think so. So to people looking at the data, our eyfs looks like it has gone backwards and has come 30th out of 35 schools. Usually we are in the top 10. We have been robust but fair with our 3 E's and have not over inflated them. Maybe we should have been more lenient as it appears others have, to get a fairer reflection of our standards. It feels a bit of a game of numbers and am thinking I am going to have to start defending our team against outsiders who will conclude we haven't done a good job. The children and schools in our area have not significantly changed in one year to have caused such a change in the data. Any words of wisdom and comfort from anyone?

[catma]

The LAs I know have also reported a wider range of outcomes and ours goes between 20% and 90%. Our LA GLD is well above national and is actually higher than last year but I know the moderation was accurate. It isn't the same assessment however so comapring to previous years is not going to tell you anything other than it's different!!!

I also don't think it helps to consider everyone else is doing it differently - if your LA moderation and training is robust then everyone got the same opportunities to know how and what to do! The moderation process is a sample of all schools and if they were accurate then the assertion is that all schools will be accurate.

 

I'm not sure it's about leniency or not - more about everyone getting to understand the best fit idea. Moving forward with this can you plan to do peer to peer moderation with local cluster groups or partner schools so you know what other schools are also seeing to award the ELG?

 

Cx

Edited July 20, 2013 by catma

[dreamgirl]

Well, our LA said read the guidance and do what it says. That was it. At moderation, I think they agreed with whatever the practitioners said, as they admitted themselves that they weren't really sure what the outcomes were going to look like. And I know that most of the schools that attended leaders forums knew that we had to make up our own minds and see what happened. No real consensus from the LA other than what was in the guidance. Don't suppose you'd let me read the guidance that you gave to your schools, as you sound like you are giving them lots of info and support?

[catma]

It was more the support really although we did do early trainings and meetings, moderation agreement trialling and our targeted work in our schools. To be honest any guidance the LA gives has to be based on the handbook and has to be "by the book" as any external moderation would not be helped by doing things in a different way! Right back at the start of the year we did an analysis of the shifts in emphasis in the 2012 ELGs to help people plan their curriculum from September...we also do a lot about unpicking data in the Spring term to identify children and areas where you need to plan interventions etc so our practitioners are used to thinking about the gaps early on and looking to see where children have maybe 10/12 of the GLD ELGs and then looking to see what they can do to close the gap and help children get the GLD. Our focus is on earlier identification of gaps and this has been our approach for several years now.

Cx

Edited July 20, 2013 by catma

[Guest]

Can I ask where you found the national figures from? Our GLD came out at 46% - which similarly to you, I was ok with knowing the pilot was 41%. However - if the figure is now 51% I am in the same position as you - defend, defend , defend!!! Are there natioal figures for the other data that was released in the pilot too (the average score / the number of chd achieving expected across all aspect of the prime areas??).

 

After what has been a very long and hard half term - I am feeling very deflated about reading this information.

 

Looks like I will be spending the Summer putting together a 'defence' statement of progress the chdn have made through the year in anticipation of teh questions that will, no doubt, be fired my way in teh Autumn term!!!

[catma]

The changing national figure is available to LAs as the data is submitted through the NCER portal - this would be their LA's data team giving an indicative data score for national. The actual figures will not be available until the first statistical release in october -ish. It is currently looking like 51% or thereabouts but may change.

 

Things to remember about the pilot:

• The children in the pilot had not been taught to the expectations of the revised ELGs
• The pilot children did better in the previous EYFSP than in the parallel pilot at getting a GLD
• The teachers did not have the same amount of time to familiarise themselves with the materials and the exemplification was only just available for them in draft form
• It was only in 19 LAs although a weighting system was used to match the national sample.

It is inevitable that nationally we will have done better than the pilot I think.

 

Cx

Edited July 20, 2013 by catma

[dreamgirl]

It has the figure on the LA data sheets that I have just received. It does say estimated by it though, so watch this space. I just know that looking down the schools and their levels of GLD, there are schools in special measures and notice to improve who have got GLDs of 70% plus. We are rated good by ofsted . So it just doesn't feel right. Wierd. But good advice Catma. Will have to take it on the chin.

[Guest]

So, Catma, in your opinion - does a tota of 46% for the GLD seem low???

[catma]

Well it is currently "below" the indicative national figure but I'd have to analyse your contextual data and also look at how aligned this is with your locality (ie other schools in your area). It will also depend on how other schools in your LA have also performed. In my LA it would be low because our average is around 69%. We say we aim for schools to be 5% above national as a floor target ie 56% this year so 46% would fall into that category for us, but it might be different for your LA and your statistical neighbours.

 

Analysis of your progress data and where children came in would help tell your story - they may have made really good progress but still have low attainment. What % of children were on track at the start of reception vs the 46% you have now. Have you increased the % of children on track in your vulnerable groups for example.

 

Cx

[Guest]

In terms of 'on track' at the beginning of the year - do you mean in terms of working within the 40-60 age band??? Would you look at this across the prim areas + Lit / Maths?? Sorry for the stupid questions - I feel really disappointed with our figure now & know I'm going to have some difficult conversations as a result as we are currently a 'Requires Improvement' school!

[catma]

In terms of 'on track' at the beginning of the year - do you mean in terms of working within the 40-60 age band??? Would you look at this across the prim areas + Lit / Maths?? Sorry for the stupid questions - I feel really disappointed with our figure now & know I'm going to have some difficult conversations as a result as we are currently a 'Requires Improvement' school!

 

Yes - what percentage in each of the 17 areas were at an emerging 40 - 60+ stage (or I might include secure 30 - 50 here as well to compare and see if that made any difference) Then look at the numbers of children on track in the 12 areas that make up the GLD...what is the picture? More girls? More boys? other groups that are important to your area (for us it's WBR boys). Then look to see how that % of on track has improved.

 

Have any of your interventions made a difference to target groups e.g. in any areas of focus like boys writing etc

 

Don't forget there is also your average total points score (ATPS) - this indicates how you have done across all 17 areas of learning. National for this is currently 33 I think..

 

Cx

[Guest]

Thanks for that - I am going to look at it now (it's what Saturday nights are for!!!! LOL) - Our ATPS was 34 so at least we have hit that one !!

 

Before I embark on this journey . . .1 more stupid question . ....when you say the number on track across the 12 areas do you mean at 2+ as a total or would you do the individual aspects??

 

Once again - thank you for your advice . . . . .I may be back for more

[catma]

I'd do it both ways round:

 

Start with % on track on entry in each of the aspects so say 10 out of 30 are emerging 40 - 60+ or higher = 33% on track for reading. Now how many got the ELG or Exceeded in reading - more? That would indicate a narrowing of the gap from on entry to now in reading.

 

Do the same for total % children who were emerging 40 - 60+ in all the 12 aspects of the GLD ELGs. Now look at % of children who got the GLD - more?

 

Do same for boys vs girls, EAL vs not EAL etc.

 

Do you have a high EAL % in your class? The speaking ELG I think is harder for children new to English to achieve with the emphasis on grammar and use of tenses in spoken English.

 

But it is Saturday night and some Swedish murder must be on soon!!!

Cx

Edited July 20, 2013 by catma

[Guest]

Catma - sorry to be a pain over this - I've had a look at our baseline (Aut 1 assessment) and end of year and, for example, - for Reading we had 0% of chdn entering as emerging within the 40/60mth band and 15% entering within the 30/50 mth band (developing competencey). At the end of the year we had 69% of the children at expected/exceeding - would you equate as good progress???

Edited July 21, 2013 by fluffy

[catma]

You're not a pain! I think I would say it was at least good progress in reading - and I'd also have a list of all the things I have done which have accelerated/made that difference to back it up!

If you had 0% children on track on entry by Ofsted's definition of secure 30 --50/emerging into 40- 60+ (although be careful with this if you have a nursery though as it can look like low expectations in that class) and now you have 69% at the ELG you have made difference in reading. At least 54% of your children must have made good/very good progress in Reception because presumably they were below developing 30 - 50 on entry?

As I said if you have a nursery class however you need to be sure that you are not making a case for good work in one class and low expectations in another when/if you have a monitoring visit.

 

Cx

[Guest]

We do have a nursery - but the baseline we did in Aut 1 was against the criteria/age bands of the new EYFS - which meant that the chdn came in not secure in 30-50 / emerging 40 - 60 but as developing competency in 30-50, the change in the dm's within the bands esp for reading made it harder to achieve secure 30-50 /dev comp 40-60 in the baseline. Hope this makes sense!!!

 

This year however - our nursery cohort who are coming into rec hve 35% at 30-50 emerg / below , 34% at 30-5 dev comp and 31% at 40 - 60 dev comp.

 

Its can be soooooooo confusing trying to collate and present figures to show progress (but perhaps thats just me!!!) bu I think I will be able to put something together now to address how we have made progress (for both Nur and Rec) . . . it's just agood job i have 6 weeks to do it in!!!

 

Are there any 'national figures' for end of nursery expectations??? (apart fom the on entry expectations used as a guideline for ofsted)

[dreamgirl]

am reading everything in this thread with great interest. couldn't sleep last night....for heat and worry!

[Guest]

Are you in a similar position to me ????

[dreamgirl]

yes! I'm the one that started this thread with 41% GLD. We are a good school and this is the first time we have been ranked so low in FSP scores. I think our judgements are right and I am astounded that some of the schools in the borough have got 70 and 80% GLD, when the ELGs are harder to get this year. So over the summer I will be doing what you are doing. I have already looked at the receptions data prior to the LA data coming out and we have at least 50% of our children who have moved from sig below or below to expected right across the board and some even to exceeding, though not many. I am pretty pleased with that. So the 41% pops the bubble. But I am more cross with the LA for not giving greater leadership on the scores. We have all done what we think is right but I just don't believe that a school that was in line with national data last year can be 30% higher than national this year given the bar being raised. Anyway-for me and you there is only one way to go.....UP! Also if you are 30% above national at EYFS, the school must maintain that progress throughout the KS1 and KS2. I think our figures are more realistic but now the 51% has emerged, am feeling disappointed. Never mind.

[Guest]

I'm getting myself in a real tizz with all these figures going round in my head. I think I am just too tired at the end of a very long term to get my had around it all thi weekend. I am going to have to eally pul it all apart in the hols and have my defence ready for Sept. I will PM you with my findings if you like and we can compare what we have / what we find out / the conclusions we come to??

Edited July 21, 2013 by fluffy

[dreamgirl]

sounds a fab idea. will do the same! Thanks! xxx

[Guest]

I really AM tired ......just re-read my post and noticed all my typing errors!!!!!

[dreamgirl]

you're sacked.

[catma]

We do have a nursery - but the baseline we did in Aut 1 was against the criteria/age bands of the new EYFS - which meant that the chdn came in not secure in 30-50 / emerging 40 - 60 but as developing competency in 30-50, the change in the dm's within the bands esp for reading made it harder to achieve secure 30-50 /dev comp 40-60 in the baseline. Hope this makes sense!!! Yes it does! And I would unpick this further and exemplify this, as this is the only year you can use this defence!

 

This year however - our nursery cohort who are coming into rec hve 35% at 30-50 emerg / below , 34% at 30-5 dev comp and 31% at 40 - 60 dev comp.

 

Its can be soooooooo confusing trying to collate and present figures to show progress (but perhaps thats just me!!!) bu I think I will be able to put something together now to address how we have made progress (for both Nur and Rec) . . . it's just agood job i have 6 weeks to do it in!!! It will go quickly!!

 

Are there any 'national figures' for end of nursery expectations??? (apart fom the on entry expectations used as a guideline for ofsted) No, because there is no national data collection apart from the EYFSP.

 

Answers above!

Cx

[WChurchill]

Really sorry. Just back from holiday and reading this info with interest. I don't know what GLD is. All I know is if they are emerging, expected or exceeding. Could any of you please enlighten me.

[catma]

The GLD is the good level of development. To get this the child must be expected or exceeding in ELGs 01 to 12, i.e. all Prime aspects and all Literacy/Maths aspects = 12/17 ELGs, There is also a supporting measure called the Average Total Points Score or ATPS which is the average of all the scores for each outcome (1=emerging 2=expected 3=exceeding) which is how they are submitted. The total of all the scores for all the children is added up and averaged by the no of children to get a supporting measure which takes into account the full curriculum.

 

Cx

[WChurchill]

Sorry Catma, are you saying just ELGs 12 - 17 for GLD.

 

Also could you explain the ATPS by example. I really appreciate your help on here.

[Froglet]

I'm not Catma but hope I can help.

 

GLD is expected for ELGs 1-12 (the prime areas plus literacy and maths)

 

I'll have a go at ATPS!

 

Add up the total score for each child in the class - (whether you've given them 1, 2 or 3 for each ELG). So a child who had expected (2) for all ELGs would get a score of 34 (17 x 2), a child that was emerging across all ELGs would get 17 (17 x 1) and a child who was exceeding across all of them would get 51 (17 x 3). Add the total scores for all the children in the class then divide that number by the number of children to give the ATPS.

 

So, for my hypothetical class of 3 (1 emerging, 1 exceeding and 1 expected for all ELGs) the ATPS would be 17 + 34 + 51 = 102 - divided by 3 gives an ATPS of 34.

 

Is that as clear as mud?!

[catma]

Perfect!!!

 

Yes by 12/17 I meant 12 out of the 17 ELGs give the GLD, being the goals numbered 1- 12.

 

Cx

[WChurchill]

Thanks so much Catma and Helen. Got it now.