National Data

[Guest]

Is there anywhere I can get national data to compare my cohort against? I am looking for data for each scale point in each subject area.

 

This is my first year in FS and the school is being moderated because of poor collection of data. Last year, there were scale points in most subject areas where no children at all scored. Having spoken to the Y1 teacher and looked at my children this year, this does appear to be a "filling in" problem rather than a blip with the cohort.

 

So the EY Adviser says I need to be looking really carefully at the areas with 0 scores last year. But the headteacher is itchy that this will give us a too high overall score (which was the problem before that). I don't have any data in school that appears to be robust to give some rough notion of where I should be heading. Traditionally, the children have been slightly below average on admission, particularly in speaking and listening.

[AnonyMouse_1195]

Try the Standards site

www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/ features/foundation_stage/fsp_data/

When we received the documentation from the pupil profile from the LA, after we had submitted our scores, we received an analysis of our own, and also an overall analysis of scores across the LA. That would give you somewhere to start.

[AnonyMouse_73]

I haven't yet seen the national data fro 2007, but the previous year, 2006 can be foundhere

 

Given the date on this one, I would think the 2007 results should be out any time now.

 

However as JacquieL said, you should have had by now at school your own data compared both to your LA and your Fischer family schools, (these are supposed to be schools in similar circumstances as yours and will be 4-5 local schools data as compared to yours).

If memory serves me correctly this data gives the percentage of children scoring 6+ in each of the scales, rather than breaking down the actual numbers of children scoring any individual point.

 

I think you could use the data to see where those areas are where none of the children scored, as this would also mean that you couldn't have had any '9s'. This is quite a useful exercise in terms of reflecting on your provision (I know there have been times when we have looked at a point and felt we didn't know enough about the children in that area and therefore adjusted the opportunities available for children to ensure that they are not missing out). It also gives a good opportunity for you to discuss the meaning of the statements in question so that all of you have a good understanding of what you are looking for.

 

If you are able to share with us which points none of your children scored, then there are plenty of members here who could help you unpick them a bit.

 

good luck

[AnonyMouse_3307]

National data comes out sometime in the spring trem - oftena round march. Some data is held in the DSCF e-room, but I think that is only accessible by LA personnel, I may be wrong though and heads might have access rights too. You could ask.

 

The type of analysis you get back from your LA will vary as there is no set way for doing it (we don't have FFT comparisons for example) but do have the whole boroughs data for comparison. However you can't get individual scale point analysis for the borough as you don't give them scale point data - just totals which they average usually. Also the national data is not at individual scale point level - The national data tells you how many chn attained a SCORE of 1 - 9, but any group of chn getting 6 could have that 6 made up in lots of different combinations. It isn't telling you that x% achieved point 6. Make sure your head is clear about that.

 

You do have to ask youselves why particular aspects haven't been attained - did you not provide for them at all? Is it a case of teacher subject knowledge? Did the children do stuff but you are not yet "seeing" what this looks like when they do in independent play? Are you doing enough observations to know what chn do in their play? Are you relying on "tick tests" thus not getting a rounded picture? All the above have been issues with FSp in my borough and the schools I support so are good starting points for internal debate.

 

Do you also moderate internally before your scores are sent off. How does your school "quality control" your data to be sure it is an accurate reflection of your current chidren? Even with LA moderation we don't see the whole picture each year, but you do so I think this is very important.

 

Creating the picture has support for using the data so may be useful to read. You can find it here

 

Cxl

Edited January 20, 2008 by catma

[Guest Keen]

We had ours sometime again compared to the LA scores and the llink here is very useful.

 

I would think it very strange if a child in my class didn't score anywhere on a scale unless of course they are a child with complex and severe needs!

 

Headteachers need to learn that there is no correlation between FSP scores and end of key stage scores so they shouldn't be encouraging us to keep our profiles low!!! Ofsted know this and it is in their latest newsletter.

 

We have exemplification from the LA for all of the points and this is very useful.

 

Good luck

[Guest]

Thanks - that link was the most detailed I have. The LA only provided children with 6+ points scored against the national data. I have spoken to the EY Adviser and she is sure this is not a provision problem, but a data collection problem. It's just hard to know what the data set should look like when there doesn't seem to be an "average" one to compare against.

[Guest]

Hello,

 

I was interested in reading 'Keens' post and if anyone could point me in the direction of the Ofsted Newsletter highlighting the issue raised it would be much appreciated. I have on more than one occasion been queried on profile data by the ks1 teacher as when it comes to the end of Ks1 they seem not to have provided the value added (needs someone to blame!) I have tried to explain there is no correelation between the FS and Ks1 but having no luck.

 

Thanks for reading my ramble.

[Guest]

please ignore my terrible spelling above... still waiting for my tea and fading away fast.

[Guest Keen]

mj-led just popped in at lunchtime so thought I'd do a quick reply!

 

You can find the document at

 

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/portal/site/Inter...0003507640aRCRD

 

The document is called Schools and inpsection / Inspection Matters Issue 17 and the best quote for me is

 

AOE TO NURSERY AND RECEPTION

No national data on attainment on entry are available for comparison. Instead, you can take account of ‘national expectations’. Remember to avoid using the term ‘average’ and ‘standards’ in relation to very young children as there is no ‘national average’ for three- and four-year-olds on entry to Nursery (YN) and Reception (YR).

 

Hope it is useful.

 

Keen

[AnonyMouse_3307]

The next bit on from that is Ofsted see yellow SS as national expectation for AOE to nursery and blue/green for AOE to reception. Only a few months away from the EYFS and no SS! Have written to them to ask what the equivalent national expectation will be from sept but no reply so far....

[Guest]

A subject dear to my heart! It's very interesting to read what everyone says. One of my performance managements targets this year is to justify why my profile scores are low against national/county averages. I have no idea where to start with that other than to constantly refer back to the Standards site:

 

'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.' (viewable in context here.)

 

I do feel that there is, and should be, a link between profile scores and attainment at the end of KS1 although I know that this is a contentious issue. For the last two years I have been setting targets for Y1 and Y2 based on my profile scores and find that they are pretty much in line with what the children actually achieve.

 

I actually feel 'bullied', for want of a better word, to mark children higher on the profile than I believe they deserve but am standing firm at the moment. Data is only relevant if we're all singing from the same hymn sheet and although there is profile moderation I don't personally set much store by this to actually monitor how rigorously children are assessed in the classroom and to weed out people who are just using the profile as a tick sheet of 'I-delivered-this-the-other-day-so-that-means-the-children-have-got-it'. I know of a school near to me where the children all scored 6+ on the profile (quite a lot of 9s) but they were lambasted by Ofsted and the Y1 teacher is pulling her hair out because the children know very little and have no understanding of discipline or routines. Yet in the gumph that comes from County that teacher provides, based on their profile scores, a better standard of education than I deliver.

 

With all of the paperwork and time that the profile requires it seems like a shabby trick to demean the job that we do by having people huff and puff about averages rather than encouraging us to really analyse what we see our children doing and to accept what I believe to be a basic truth: a bright Reception child is likely to go on being bright all the way to Y6 whilst a child who finds it difficult to grasp concepts in Reception is likely to go on struggling. Shouldn't that be reflected in the profile scores? I think that you'll be hard pressed to find accurate data because we're all being bludgeoned with the 'most children score 6' thing - averageness for all: yuk!

 

I'm sorry to have hijacked the original thread but I feel so strongly about this. I'll be very interested in everyone's ongoing comments and only hope I haven't scared you all off. Sorry!

[Guest Keen]

Moose I think the nub of the matter is not where they are whne they come into reception or where they are when they leave but more did the children make progress in my reception class especially in PSE.

 

I use info from parents, pre school, children and the first term obs to make my first judgements on the profile and this for me is the beginning of the journey. I then use the profile again in Feb making judgements from some observations and using my professional judgements and of course at the end of YR I enter the final judgements.

 

I can then see the progress the children have made. We also have learning journals for each child and these are great and the children can see progress. Every child is good at something and my aim is to find that something and enable the child to see themself as a suiccessful learner. If you know you can learn then those harder thingsa in life become just a little easier!

[AnonyMouse_73]

Moose this must have been bothering you in the middle of the night judging by the time of posting.

 

We were heavily criticised by OFSTED last year for not getting enough 6+ especially in LSL and writing, despite the fact that the children on entry scores were 1s and 2s mostly, they still saw this as not good enough progress. We had worked hard on developing these areas ad knew the scores the next year would be higher (which they were) but that didn't matter to them either. The children made very good progress in PSED but this didnt matter either.

 

I found the whole thing very depressing. My experience with the children I taught then was that they just didn't have enough grasp of language generally and English particularly to make huge strides during reception but often did so in year one. (especially boys). But then what you get is, isnt year one fantastic, look at what they have achieved with their children, whereas I would be saying look at what we achieved in order for those children to make that progress in year one.

 

We know that so far there is very little correlation between FS scores and KS1 scores, partly for the reasons we found ourselves as I stated previously. The whole targetting setting process based on scores is in my view fundamentally flawed to make that assumption that all children follow the same linear pattern of progress at all times. (we have all heard the children must pass through 2 sublevels each year etc etc). They dont! Most children peak and trough at various times, and for many children (especially boys) they dont make that spurt in FS. On the other hand, children doing well in FS, may dip off during year one or two, and make less progress than the 'expected' amount. Its back to the one size fits all model that we have been talking about recently.

 

 

Moose, you have a tough PM target there, but I would break it down. Which scores exactly are lower than expected averages? All of them? Some? Have you made local comparisons, and looked at similar schools? Are the scores low because of data collection, or because of pupil achievement? Are there particular points that children are not scoring which relate to provision? Are there major differences between boys and girls, or between cultural groups?

All of this would be part of your analysing the data to see what is going on, before you then decide what you are going to do about it.

[AnonyMouse_3307]

The next bit on from that is Ofsted see yellow SS as national expectation for AOE to nursery and blue/green for AOE to reception. Only a few months away from the EYFS and no SS! Have written to them to ask what the equivalent national expectation will be from sept but no reply so far....

 

 

Finally got a reply from Ofsted as to what natioanl expectations on entry to Nursery/Reception will be for them with the EYFS - a masterful piece of spin and double speak, something about consulting and trialling waffle waffle waffle......................and only 3 months to get back to me!

Cx

[AnonyMouse_79]

Finally got a reply from Ofsted as to what natioanl expectations on entry to Nursery/Reception will be for them with the EYFS - a masterful piece of spin and double speak, something about consulting and trialling waffle waffle waffle......................and only 3 months to get back to me!

Cx

 

that feels like a real cliff hanger and I came in search of words of wisdom, Catma!

[AnonyMouse_3307]

Well just watch this space.....I'm not giving up. I have a regional advisor and I know her email address.........

Cx

[Guest]

Just to update you, SMT has agreed for targets based on national averages (or slightly below) in each area and 9s based on LA averages, which seem to be much lower than nationally. There is definitely an expectation in our LA that FSP scores of 9 will lead to 3s at KS1, which could be why they 9s are so low !!!

[Guest tinkerbell]

LEA moderation meeting today.Told that 9's are very rare.That 7-8 is really good, nat av 6-7.

I of course spoke out and asked why have points 1-9 if the children didn't have a chance of reaching 9, and would they explain to HTs that we were not failing our children by not getting them to be a 9.I also told my HT that in the past we did give 9's because we were told the children should reach 9 at the end of the foundation year....goalposts....a little bit like an average child was a 2c now they are a 2b.....blah blah blah

 

 

Tinkerbell

[AnonyMouse_3307]

Most children have always been expected to attain the ELGs by the end of FS which would be points 4 - 8. To get this points a child would generally be showing that skill etc independently most of the time. 9 therefore is beyond that and would indicate a child who is working at a deeper level and I would argue pretty much all of the time, drawing on the complete range of aspects within that area of learning. I don't think the goal posts have moved, I think we forget the details that are in the handbooks, don't refer back to them too much and don't join them up!

Cx

[Guest]

I am so glad I joined the forum. I always learn so much!

Thanks everyone.

[Guest]

Just been in touch with DCFS, sad I know!, They tell me that the 2008 FSP national data will be available on-line from 5.30 (is that after the office closes?!) www.dcfe.gov.uk/rsgateway. A joy to look forward to?

[Guest]

oops! dcfs I mean - still sounds like it's a place selling sofas

[Guest]

Has the info been released yet? I haven't been able to track it down on the website.

[AnonyMouse_3307]

PS - just like to say that the clearest statement on there being no correlation between NC levels from scale points or aggregated scale scores is in the new EYFSP handbook - it just says there isn't one!

(only 2 copies being sent to all maintained settings, your LA will have to apply for 2 copies per PVI setting that will have to complete it in 2009. All children aged 5 at the end of the year will have to be profiled regardless of setting/funding etc)

 

Cx

[Guest]

Has anyone found the data for 2008? I can only find 2007.

[AnonyMouse_79]

Isnt it too early for that, just yet?