Predicting Yr 2 Sats

[Guest]

Well Mundia you are raising another issue altogether. That is this issue of very poor management, which is a whole other thing. We should never cease to point out the flaws in any of this type of work. Any manager who uses it to try a browbeat a teacher is obviously so intellectually dim as to be dangerous and should be made to stand in the corner and learn about statistics.

 

We were actually taken to task by the DFES because the writing scores in our authority were 'too high' (they were unusually high). However we maintained these were accurate scores and all the children have gone on to score equally or increasingly well in their end of year 1 teacher assessments. SO actually what we have is a particular group of 30 children who a good writers. In fact what we probably have are around 6 children who are better at writing than usual which means a 21% swing in writing. This years scores were down around 20% - did we suddenly get worse at teaching writing? It may be that that particular teacher is good at teaching writing. She has the new reception class and it will be interesting to see what happens this year. However judgements of this type can only be made over years. This does show how silly figures are in a one form entry school

 

If any teacher gets grief from senior management over this it says more about them as managers than the teacher. However if scores continually show that one teachers class consistently scores below anothers I would suggest something needs to be looked at - how assessments are made for starters.

[Marion]

Thought I would throw this into the discussion

 

The issue of value added is a complex one. Within the Foundation Stage, what is the age of entry? There is a full investigation of this at the following location: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/f...data/attainment

If the starting point is one point of entry to a Reception class (two point entry and three point entry raise different issues), then children's attainment will vary considerably across Birth to Three Matters, the six areas of learning and the 13 scales of the Foundation Stage Profile. Progress will depend on children’s particular strengths and interests and the time they have spent in a funded setting prior to entry to the reception class. For some children, it may be possible to track progress over the 3 terms of the reception class using the Foundation Stage Profile. This would provide an appropriate form of value-added. However, it may not always be appropriate to do this. For example, where children are still working within Birth to Three Matters or the stepping stones.

 

Linkages to key stage 1 outcomes should be approached with caution. Key stage 1 National Curriculum tests are carefully designed to measure specific aspects of the English and mathematics curriculum. The Foundation Stage Profile is a whole key-stage, whole curriculum teacher assessment designed to assess both affective and cognitive aspects of learning. Key stage 1 tests rely on QCA’s rigorous test evaluation procedures for their accuracy. Teacher assessment is dependent upon effective moderation. Moderation is the statutory responsibility of the head teacher and of the local authority. At a local level, some authorities have yet to fully implement their statutory duties. In some schools, the Foundation Stage is not yet fully implemented. In these situations, the whole process of considering value-added that conforms to statutory requirements will be extremely difficult.

 

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.

 

 

Another document you might want to look at.............

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/ts/docs/guide1.doc

 

"These targets, for both improvement and reducing inequalities, will be based on the Foundation Stage Profile results (to be superseded under the Act by the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile), which already provide the best measure of development across the whole breadth of the 5 ECM outcomes. Targets should aim to:

 

• improve young children’s development by increasing the percentage who achieve a total of at least 78 points across the Foundation Stage Profile and at least 6 points in each PSED and CLL scale

• improve the average FSP score of the lowest achieving group to narrow the gap between that group and the rest"

[Guest]

Sorry Moose its me thats getting carried away, but even the assumption of level 6 = 2b at KS1 so at end of year 1 level 6 = 1A so at end of reception level 6=1C err no wrong again.

 

I don't think, though, that just because a child who achieves 6 might be expected to achieve a level 2b that it follows that a 6 is equal to a 1c - after all, the two curriculums are different. I had a good debate with our lead Ofsted man about the fact that I score my profiles hard. He said that more children should be scoring 6+ and I said 'No - that 6 was a 'good' score not an average' and showed him the information from NAA which states quite clearly that 6 is 'good'. I also said that I was more interested in the progress that children had made from their starting points on-entry and was able to show him evidence that proved that they made good progress. He then asked me about the 6 equating to a level 2b, with 2b being the average score at SATs. I pointed out that these are different curriculums and there is likely to be a 'jump back' as there is when children move from KS1 to KS2 and from KS2 to KS3. I also said that I won't overscore the profile as this puts an unfair pressure on the teachers in KS1 and, more importantly, on the children. He must have been happy with this.

 

Thanks Marion - I didn't know if we were allowed to cut and paste from the Standards Site - this is the answer to Q9 that I had referred to in my earlier post. Looking at it again now it seems rather vague. Does it mean that in order to achieve a 2b in ANY subject then they need to score a 6 on EVERY area of the profile or does it mean that if a child scores 6 in a particular area then they are likely to achieve a 2b in the NC corresponding area? Ho hum!

Edited September 30, 2006 by Guest

[Marion]

I read it as the corresponding area but I could be wrong..........often am

[catma]

It does say "all scales" so I would see it as that. Not just the CLL/MD ones that link to NC subjects. Strong PSE scores are important, so are the others for that matter. This is assessment of affective as well as a cognitive learning. It's not unreasonable to expect a child who is doing well - i.e. achieving an overall 6+ in the 13 scales to carry on achieving well with good "quality first teaching". However many factors may impede progress - these we cannot predict. The scale points 9 contain "elements" (I quote Lesley Staggs here) of levels 1c to 2b. There is a lot more around each NC level in relation to using and applying and wider knowledge. Could you say a child with 6 points in writing had an equivalence to level 1c say if they didn't achieve point 5 or 7 or 8 within their 6?

 

 

In relation to target setting we already have the PSA (public service agreement) targets for CLL/PSE and LA's are being asked to have targets that relate to our % of children achieving 6 or more. I don't believe this is being asked of settings/schools to do as a formal target setting exercise in the way that you have to predict y2 and y6 outcomes but maybe different areas are pushing for this? I don't know.

[Guest]

Hi

Just a question for Marion, would you rather use the FSP and especially the eprofile format than the county produced materials we use at present

[Guest]

The point is they seem to be expecting a 'jump forward' from reception to year one if level 6 is to equate to 2b at KS1. I consider that to be very unfair to children. I arrive at a 1C by their own logic. 2/3rds of a level per year. If the children have had good FS practice before year one then the transition should mean there is some sort of 'jump back' but somehow 2/3rds of a level per year only applies to children used to working within the National Curriculum not those who are new to it??!! The trouble is few FS experts have experience and knowledge of KS1 and vice versa. Anyone out there experienced at taking children from reception to year one?

[catma]

But what it says is "a child achieving 6 points might reasonably be expected to reach level 2B". I think they missed out 6 points or more". As 6 is a good average in FSP, 2b is the good average for a child at the end of KS1 (Level 2 being the expected average and a 2c not seen as securely on track for a level 4 at the end of KS2) Therefore scoring 6 or more puts you in a good position to achieve at least a level 2 - possibly a 2b or above??

 

It's not an exact science - it's children.

Cx

[Marion]

but with good transition and Y1 working to Every Child Matters and following the FS at least initially this should be minimised.

[Guest]

As 6 is a good average in FSP

I'm sorry - I know I'm very boring, but where does it equate 6 to 'average'. If it's a 'good average' then what's a 'poor average'? We were told that, nationally, most children score 6 or more across the 13 scales. That could mean 51% do and 49% don't. I know it doesn't but it could do!

Edited September 30, 2006 by Guest

[catma]

ok - a scale score of 6 or more is a "good" level of attainment within the 4-8 range of FS, ie. working well within the ELGs which is the expected range of attainment for most children at the end of the key stage. A level 2b or more is a good level of attainment working within level 2, with level 2 being the expected average for most children by the end of KS1. So the perception is , I think that a child with 6+ in all 13 scales would continue to achieve a good level of attainment and thus have the potential to get to that level within their sats scores.

 

i.e. getting a score of 4 -5 is like getting level 1c, within the range of expected attainment but not securely within that range. I think it's been forgotten that with SATs the expectation is that most children will attain within level 2 - not specifically level 2b+. We know now that a 2c is not a secure indicator of succesful KS2 outcomes so the target group of 2cs has been identified and the value of 2b made important but 2c's are still a level 2!

 

Just my own theory

Cx

[Guest]

Hi Catma - thanks. Is this actually written down anywhere, though, as irrefutable fact or are we being led to believe that because 'most' children currently score 6+ on the profile? Sorry!

[Guest tinkerbell]

Wow ,have just read the debate.

What worries me as I am responsible for tracking in school ,is if all these children are doing so well and reaching level 3 at the end of KS1 with the add 2 point each year...we have children in year4 /yr5 who are reaching level 5...now where does that leave us????? The Ofsted inspector was struggling to come to terms with that one !

Tinkerbellx

[catma]

Moose - it's the rationale I have come to based on the statements in the Assessment and reporting arrangements (ARA) document (annual info re tests and tasks for FS/KS1) where it does state the 6 is a good level etc (Does it say 6 or more - can't recall but the 2007 version is now available for downloading or is in your school. You get 3 copies I think) Anyway - linking this with what I know about KS1 sats from their inception this is the logic I have come up with to explain and rationalise it. So no - it's not written down (except here of course!!) but it's what made sense to me after reading all the documentation around this. There isn't anywhere as far as I know where there is definitive "guidance" on this because as the info on the standards site says ( and wasn't this in the letter from NAA/Jan Dubiel posted a while back) the FSP was not conceived as an indicator of KS1 attainment and any correlations should be treated with caution.

 

Cx

 

An d I could be completely barking up the wrong tree here!!!!

[Marion]

Hi

Just a question for Marion, would you rather use the FSP and especially the eprofile format than the county produced materials we use at present

 

I think the county materials have merit in that they break things down further than the FSP my problem with the eprofile is so many people seem to have problems (technical) so not sure if it would save time. Also we use the Flying Start 2 materials for on going assessment from entry to nursery until the end of reception (carried on into Y1 this year) and it provides a good visual indication of any gaps in children's learning.

[Guest]

Thanks Catma.

[Guest]

Sorry, just caught up with this discussion! It makes very interesting reading!

I've just had to work out my end of year predictions for my Y1 class based on e-profile - and then end of Y2 predictions. According to assessments carried out by FS teacher at least 15 children should get level 3 at end of Y2 as have been given 8+ for writing, and similar scores for S&L, Reading and Maths. We seem in some confusion though whether FS data counts towards value added or not? Does anyone know the answer? Seem to hear different things from different people. Last years Y2 had 1 Level 3 writer, so based on the info we have we've got a lot of work to do if (and a big if!) these children are all meant to get Level 3s in 2 years time.

 

Why can't children be allowed to be exactly that - why make them facts and figures!

[Guest]

As far as most of the language and literacy as well as maths profile statements go, there is a big difference between level 8 and level 9, so you need to establish how many level 9's and how many 8's. To achieve a 9 they have to be writing at realistically 1b NC. 2/3rds of a level would give you 2A at end KS1 so to expect them to score 3's is not out of the question. However that doesn't necessarily apply to 8's where a 2b, 2A is more realistic. Remember to consider: are the profile scores reflecting the children's continuing achievement in Year one? and Year two? Management should be aware that profile scoring is still a new thing and not yet consistently accurate certainly not across whole authorities - therefore not too much should be concluded from those scores other than to look at whether children are building on their progress in the FS or have they failed to progress.

It's simply wrong to get too stressed about profile scores - how accurate were SAT's in their first three years? To give you an example - a science question in the first KS1 science SAT was repeated some 5 years later as a KS2 question!!