Where Are Your Children Now?

[Guest]

Hi guys,

 

I have been reading all your posts with interest as myself (reception) and the nursery nurse (nursery) have been hauled in to have our knuckles beaten over our profile reports (last year) and baseline (this year).

 

We have been told by our lea the average child should be getting 4 or 5, and not a 6 as i believed it was last year, (so my scores were high). I gave the children what i believed they deserved and now this year we are worried how to score them - We have been told to be 'cautious'.

 

To be honest i don't know why we are bothering doing them at all - we seem to basically being told to mark them lower. Anyone else having this problem?

 

P.S We have a moderation meeting in the next few weeks - how much evidence should i be taken for each point?

[Guest]

From what I can make out I think your situation is unusual. From most of the replies to my original post I think that people are being led to believe that 6 is now 'average' and there was an article in the paper a little while ago that if children weren't scoring 6 then this would affect their future ability to succeed. Your LEA's stance is much more in line with the information that had been posted on this site previously, quoting Lesley Staggs, as saying that 4-5 was a typical level of achievement and 6 was 'good'. I wish I worked for your LEA, Buttonmoon, as my scoring would fit in with what they want! I know that my scores will come in badly, again, against my LEA scores as I just can't bring myself to be generous with them!

[Guest]

Oh dear, I am now getting very confused! And v. worried because my class this year (unlike previous classes) are really quite capable - which wouldn't or shouldn't in any way be a problem but I am v. anxious about scoring too highly!

 

You just can't win!

[Guest]

Hi guys,

 

I have been reading all your posts with interest as myself (reception) and the nursery nurse (nursery) have been hauled in to have our knuckles beaten over our profile reports (last year) and baseline (this year).

 

We have been told by our lea the average child should be getting 4 or 5, and not a 6 as i believed it was last year, (so my scores were high). I gave the children what i believed they deserved and now this year we are worried how to score them - We have been told to be 'cautious'.

 

To be honest i don't know why we are bothering doing them at all - we seem to basically being told to mark them lower.    Anyone else having this problem?

 

P.S We have a moderation meeting in the next few weeks - how much evidence should i be taken for each point?

54791[/snapback]

 

 

Buttonmoon - I had moderation recently on the areas of Calculating and Physical Development. We had to take a top/middle/bottom range of work for 3 different profile points, they could not be a top/mid/bottom for the same profile point. So altogether, the samples covered 3 diff. points for calculating and 3 diff points for physical devlt. Hope this isn't too confusing

[Guest]

Buttonmoon - I had moderation recently on the areas of Calculating and Physical Development. We had to take a top/middle/bottom range of work for 3 different profile points, they could not be a top/mid/bottom for the same profile point. So altogether, the samples covered 3 diff. points for calculating and 3 diff points for physical devlt. Hope this isn't too confusing

54805[/snapback]

 

 

Buttonmoon, we had to take a piece of MD and a piece of PD evidence that was annotated and awarded the relevant point. IN small groups we looked at each others' evidence and using the FSP handbook and point criteria, we agreed/altered judgements. Was very productive!!!

[Guest]

Hey,

 

We have been asked just to bring evidence with us for MD and PD, not any spercific points. Mind you they were supposed to get in touch ages ago to confirm date and they didn't.

 

With the average being 4 or 5 here, i'm struggling to mark that low as i have some able children. V - annoying.

[Marion]

From what I can make out I think your situation is unusual. From most of the replies to my original post I think that people are being led to believe that 6 is now 'average' and there was an article in the paper a little while ago that if children weren't scoring 6 then this would affect their future ability to succeed. Your LEA's stance is much more in line with the information that had been posted on this site previously, quoting Lesley Staggs, as saying that 4-5 was a typical level of achievement and 6 was 'good'. I wish I worked for your LEA, Buttonmoon, as my scoring would fit in with what they want! I know that my scores will come in badly, again, against my LEA scores as I just can't bring myself to be generous with them!

54800[/snapback]

 

 

I have been thinking hard about the 'average thing' we were OFSTEDed in January and one of the comments they made was that our children came in below average and left above average (scores of around 6 in each area)

hope this doesnt confuse things more

[Guest]

Hi

There is obviously considerable regional variation. I have dug out the Surrey FSP data for 2005...

 

Average scores across Surrey were:-

Disposition and attitudes 7.4

Social Development 7.1

Emotional Development 7.1

Lang for communication & thinking 7.0

Linking sounds and letters 6.4

Reading 6.6

Writing 6.0

Numbers as labels for counting 7.5

Calculating 6.7

Shape, space and measures 7.1

K&U of the world 6.9

Physical Development 7.4

Creative Development 6.9

 

So, no pressure for me then

[Guest]

Ooh, Marion - how exciting! If 6 is above average then that's more in line with what I had understood (not that that means anything!). That's going against the information that lots of LEAs seem to be giving out though isn't it?

[Marion]

Our average scores last year were

 

Dispositions and Attitude 7.2

Social Development 6.4

Emotional Development 6.6

Average 6.7

 

Communication, Language and Literacy

Language for Communication and Thinking 6.8

Linking Sounds and Letters 6.1

Reading 7.2

Writing 6.0

Average 6.6

 

Mathematical Development

Numbers as Labels and for Counting 6.6

Calculating 6.5

Shape, Space and Measures 6.8

Average 6.7

 

Knowledge and Understanding of the World 8.3

Physical Development 7.0

Creative Development 7.1

Edited April 26, 2006 by Marion

[Guest]

Great - feel even better now! My average scores were about the 6 and a bit mark last year. I've had a horrible day today and wondered why the hell I do this job (having to fill in all the bits of the SEF that relate to Foundation Stage - no-one else has to do this. I have to know about everything that relates to KS1/KS2 but no-one has to know about me! How does that work?!). Now I feel not so much of a failure and will continue to be 'hard' with my marking! Thanks Marion. You really are a superstar - I always seem to tell you that, don't I?!

[Guest]

Just had a thought - average scores for a cohort are very different from the scores for an 'average' child aren't they? Maybe the two are being confused - I wonder if that's where all the muddle and mixed messages are coming from?

Edited April 26, 2006 by Guest

[Guest]

And then you wonder why on earth do we bother at all!!!

At recent moderation they were saying that things observed maybe just once could be ticked off and it all gave the impression of being a little more flexible and generous. I worry a lot about my scores as the year goes on. I always have a couple of children who score 9 in some areas because we have above average children coming to the school and we have a very good preschool set up linked closely to the school. I have children who already have 7 points in numbers as labels when they come into Reception. We have a girl who reads fluently in preschool this year - so where will she fit?????

Then you have the pressure from target setting for Y2 SATS based on Profile scores. YES I know it shouldn't happen but it does. The Y1 teacher has the Profile scores translated into NC levels automatically on the computer and if a child doesn't score 9 there are no predicted level 3s for Y2!!!! PRESSURE all round.

To be honest it's a farce. And I'll shut up now before I get going!

Heyjude

[Guest]

Sorry to start this off again but I've just come back from a moderation course where I questioned this '6 is the average' thing. They said that a child who scores between 4 - 7 is working within the ELGs. However, they said that MOST children have an average point score of 6 across all areas i.e. you work out a child's total score then divide by 13 and most children will come out with an average of 6. Sorry if you're all going, 'Well, duh!' but I feel much happier about this as it allows for strengths and weaknesses and means that I don't need to feel worried when my 'average' children haven't scored 6 in some areas.

Edited May 24, 2006 by Guest

[Guest tinkerbell]

My course today too was saying the average child will be a 6. So why do the consultancy papers say' children would have achieved early learning goals by the end of their reception year?'

 

Tinkerbellx

[Guest]

Are you in East Sussex by any chance?

 

The people running my course said that whilst the Curriculum Guidance says that it is expected that children will have achieved the ELGs by the end of the year the data is now suggesting that this is not feasible. The Curriculum Guidance was printed in 2000. Wouldn't it be lovely if we could all move the goalposts whenever we felt like it or to justify what we'd done? Obviously that's not allowed for us lesser mortals!

[Guest tinkerbell]

No I am in Calderdale Moose.The course was not that productive if you look at my post on Playing with sounds....mixed messages.

Tinkerbellx

[Susan]

Presumably as 6 is within that range that constitutes working within ELGs?

And of course there always was the "most" clause.

[Guest]

Does this fit in with what everyone else is being told - that the 6 comes from the total score divided by 13, rather than 6 in each area?

[Guest]

Dear Moose,

 

While on a Foundation Stage Masters Module with Tina Bruce earlier this year she stated that most children would not reach all the ELGs which is significant because she was one of the writers of the document.

 

I think it is important to remember that there are a range of developmental levels and this should be reflected in the scales given. Don't be tempted to say children are achieving higher than they actually are.

 

I was not aware that there was any correlation of SATs levels or NC levels in line with the profile scales although common sense tells you a child scoring an 8 or 9 is above average.

 

Our job is to provide a balance curriculum with opportunities for individual children to develop and learn. We cannot be held accountable for all the contributing factors such as biological and physiological development. We can facilitate and enhance children's learning but there will always be variations.

 

Personally I always found that children scored lower on the writing aspects of CLL than say the reading so don't think if they are scoring high in one area they will automatically be likewise across the profile.

 

Your educational Borough should be sending you on courses and it is always good to network with other teachers in reception.

 

Hope this advice is not too late now. Best wishes, Fountain

[Guest AMP]

I'm still smarting from a meeting i had with my head a couple of months ago. He wanted to know what i could"predict" for my children in reading writing and maths, because the results were lower last year than the tear before. I obviously made the mistake of filling in the FSP honestly based on those children and didn't look at the previous year to make sure they were just up a bit!!!! Do I sound cynical? You bet I am. Any way, my colleague and I are teaching to the FSp, we are looking to fill up the gaps, and we are making sure we have some evidence!! Talk about covering your back!

It's a shame that education has come down to being able to prove that you have taught something. When I started teaching (longer ago than I care to mention) we simply got on with teaching the kids to the best of our (and their) ability. The results spoke for themselves and the next teacher simply took them on from where they were. And strangely enough, they did OK, they achieved what they were expected to achieve and we actually had some (careful now!) FUN!!!

[Guest]

I expect most of you knew already but they've changed the guidance on the Standards Site about the Foundation Stage. Here's the bit that I found particularly interesting (everything has changed although the headings have stayed the same and some of the answers don't particularly seem to pertain to the questions ) :

 

Lead inspectors looking at the Foundation Stage Profile data may make reasonable assumptions about children’s attainment and the progress they should make as they move into key stage 1 and 2. For example, children achieving a total of six points on all scales might reasonably be expected to reach level 2B in key stage 1 assessments. Children achieving a total of eight points on all scales might reasonably be expected to reach level 3 in key stage 1 assessments.

 

We suspected it was coming didn't we?!

 

Here's a link so you can read it in context. The above is paragraph 3.

Edited June 23, 2006 by Guest

[Susan]

Thanks Moose!

[Guest]

Well of course it was coming Moose - and despite what we were told we all knew it. At a recent meeting I heard that 'We can now make predictions because FSC and FSP has been running long enough to collect data and make predictions. In other words the first children who were FSP'd have been SATed. But increasingly I'm altering my scoring of points - as we get more used to the profile and have looked at things through moderation. We no longer expect that most of the children achieve 8 ..... It makes me sick.

 

What's that famous quote - there are statistics .... and damn lies -- too tired/knackered after report writing, profiling, planning, new intake visits, parents' meetings, planning school trips - doing risk assessments, home/pre school visits, staff meetings etc. to remember.

 

Now I'm sure I have a husband somewhere if only I had time to talk to him.

[Guest]

Do you think Ladbrokes would take bets on the fact that FSP scores will now take a BIG dip? I'll be rich!

[michaelle]

i seem to be on a bit of a grim year eeek!

[Guest]

Focus Education assessments have even plotted graphs to predict what children are likely to achieve up to KS2 SATs from the profile data and we were given them to inform our target setting! How pleasant! Did look at them with contempt which was overly evident at a meeting and think I need to learn a more diplomatic face for professional meetings, but what the hey! Deputy Head and Head definitely know my take on them - someone needs to fight for the right of 4 year olds to be just that - 4 year olds instead of impending KS2 SAT sitters!!!

[Guest]

I know that face, Gater. When I'm cross I always try to do what I think is a neutral face but apparently it comes across as murderous .

 

Whilst part of me is outraged that children are being set-up, at the ages of 4 and 5, to be educational yays or nays, another part of me feels quite glad that perhaps now there will be more consistency in scoring the FSP and I won't have to sit, doing my face, in moderation meetings when people have got their whole class scored off as being over 100 with most of them being on 115+.

[Guest]

Those are extremely high scores! I transferred my scores today and they ranged from 20 to 102. I worked out an average across all area for each child too. I have 13 reception children

3 with statements - scoring average scores of 1.5, 2.1, 2.9

then it goes, 3.5, 4.4, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 6.5, 6.8, 7.2, 7.5, 7.8

 

Not such a good cohort this year asother years!

Marie

[Guest]

Catching up with threads as I have been so busy writing reports, finalising profile scores etc. Read with interest the comments about Ofsted's expectations. We had Ofsted last month. My profiles were up to date and had been moderated. The lead inspector wasn't interested in the profiles, all he wanted to know was whether we had done a baseline assessment. I said that Kent doesn't do baseline to which re replied 'I don't know anything about kent but most authorities still do. He was only interested in statistics - how many came in as average etc. He watched some Child Initiated and said it should have been more directed - he could have come to any other session in the day for that. As a result Foundation Stage got satisfactory, whereas everything else was good or very good, and every section of the report had reference to the lack of on-entry asessment. As a result of it all, my head says Foundation Stage will now be subject to monitoring and support, and has called in advisors to see whether we are doing it right.

 

Sorry to rant, but I am very bitter about it all!!!!!!!