Jump to content
Home
Forum
Join Us
Articles
About Us
Tapestry

Impact of change of ELG Maths descriptor last year


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi,

This is a question for all Reception class and Ks1 teachers and/or assessment managers...following the change in the descriptors for the maths early learning goals we are finding the knock on effect of 'predicted' levels worryingly high for end of Year 1! So under the old descriptors if a child met 6 or more of the aspects within the number strand a child was entering Year 1 as 'working towards level 1', therefore their end of year target would be 1a/2c. Under the new goals descriptor the children that achieve the early learning goal are entering Year 1 as a secure level 1...so if we go by that lovely trajectory that we have to get children to conform to, of steady '6points or one level a year in KS1' progress...we are looking at children being predicted 2a at end of Year 1, therefore predicted 3a end of Year 2...which seems very unattainable. Sorry to be asking a very Ks1 question...but having been EYFS for so long I'm having a headache getting my head round the steady upwards diagonal progress expected of children (rather than our much more realistic scattered acquisition with milestones and best fit method). Are there any EY practitioners out there that are involved with levelling moderation within their school setting, that are experiencing similar? Has there been any guidance from your LA on the subject?? Meeting with someone from our LA tomorrow...but their past support although fantastic has always been, you don't need to worry about the future implications, just judge as you see right for your children right now in EY. I am torn between being EYFS and being helpful to the rest of the school. In addition, we are a school in a category so being monitored by LA and HMI, so data has to be completely accountable and justifiable. Sorry this has turned into quite a post! Any help, pointers or similar musings would be helpful! Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with all of this lies in the fact that there is no document which states the child getting the Expected level at the end of EYFS is simultaneously attaining a NC level!

Ofsted say this:

Progress measures from the end of reception (Early Learning Goals) to Key Stage 1
33. The early learning goals do not translate precisely to National Curriculum levels. However, as a broad rule of thumb children who reach a good level of development at the end of the Reception Year ought to be reaching at least Level 2b by end of Key Stage 1. Children exceeding the early learning goals at the end of reception ought to be exceeding Level 2b at the end of Key Stage 1 and be reaching Level 2a as a minimum, and more likely Level 3.

Cx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely understand your confusion as we are struggling with exactly the same dilemma. Like Catma said, there is no official correlation between EYFSP and NC. We considered the Ofsted guidance when moderating last year, and since we expect the majority of our children to attain a 2b or above at KS1 then you would think the majority should therefore achieve GLD in EY. The national average does not support this. We have had both school improvement advisor and Early Years advisor in - neither were aware of the Ofsted guidance and just said they simply didn't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah the helpful 'do not know'! Glad to hear others are in the same boat, NettyNoodles. Thanks Catma for pointing out going back to the guidance. I am aware of it and the fact that the Early learning goal does not translate directly to NC level...but as I am now working with in both Foundation Stage and year 1 classes I am using both ways of assessing children. The current year 1s are my old FS cohort, who I know very well. So when it came to doing the year 1 entry data I knew very well that most of my class were working well within level 1 (as the descriptors are the same as, or below the expectations of the early learning goal). Although ofsted guidance says that a child who has good level of development should broadly be 2b by end of KS1... What we're finding is that if they enter year 1 having met the maths aspects..they are level 1 in maths, and are then on the path to make 2 points or one sub level progress per whole term. This does not then add up to a 2b...but a 2a and sometimes a 3c. When powers that be analyse our data they will expect there to be that level of progress...not the 2b mentioned in the guidance. (Although going to be printing that off, highlighting and adding to my assessment file :-) )On top of that, we are expected to be helping the children make accelerated progress! The difference between the whole child 'good level of progress' and individual subject scoring gets applied to the children. They have a summer holiday...then we look at them differently! We compartmentalise their learning, separating up their development in each area and make predictions...holding teachers accountable if that progress is not met. I'm talking myself in circles here, I know! I'd just like to be able to eloquently explain to assessment leaders (not much experience of EYFS assessment) and anyone else that queries, that actually we're in a bit of a pickle as this is the first cohort that has been measured differently and against some tougher goals...so it's tricky to compare to past cohorts (which have had more making GLD than the current year1). Good luck one and all with this! Hate getting tied up with all the quibbles of paperwork....not what it's all about...so I'm off to plan our mud kitchen area! Hurrah! Thanks for your help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is tricky and I do understand where you are coming from.

If your data now (after a term's teaching in Yr) is still indicating those level 3 attainers by the end of KS1 then you'll have a clearer picture of your data I suppose!

Cx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe, Moorside! No levels, yes...but what will we come up with?? In my head I'm hoping for a rainbow arc spectrum of development...where any child at any given time can be anywhere on the arc, on any colour...there is no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow because it is a forever just out of reach goal that we continue to strive towards reaching through our adult lives...true attainment is reached when we reach personnel enlightenment upon departing this plain...mmmmm.....eerrrrr not sure how we measure that one on paper...but we can all dream of an educational utopia :-)

Thanks Catma for your empathy. Yes current (we do half term assessment and moderation) data is following the trajectory that our able will be high 2s and more able going into 3...which is what's worrying the Year 2 teacher...understandably.

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)