We Have Ofsted In At The Moment...

[Guest]

Just a quickie really... the inspector on the OFSTED team assigned to the FS seems to be infatuated with how mnay children are working ABOVE the ELGs and how I know.

 

I told her I know because I use the e-profile as an ongoing tool... so it's always up-to-date, and I could show her there and then. Points 8 and 9 on the profile are deemed to be working above the ELGs apparently.

 

But what I was wondering was, on average, how many children do you have achieving all points, PLUS 8 and 9 in reading and writing?

 

Thanks

 

~Paul

[AnonyMouse_79]

Well point 9 was always identified as beyond ELGs wasnt it?

And could only be scored if all points 1 to 8 had been attained but the others are not necessarily hierarchical and can be scored in any order.

This must be especially true in K & U where the knowledge and skills are so broad.

So how can point 8 also be above ELGs, although I can see that all points 1 - 8 might indicate this, although I thought that indicated that ELGs had been attained and child was roughly operating at NClevel 1.

 

And how many children attain this, in the school and cohort I was working with very, very few if any.

[Guest]

yeah it did used to be point 9 meant working above... but I read the other day in an OFSTED report on the tranistion from FS to year 1 that they now consider points 8 AND 9 to be working above ELGs. 4-7 are working WITHIN... and 1 - 3 working TOWARDS.

 

Agreed about the KUW statements, they are so wooley - though 1-6 I find quite easy to assess - it's the random statements seemingly thrown on the end as afterthoughts about other cultures I find most bizarre!

[AnonyMouse_79]

Is that in the latest transition report?

 

I didnt take that in if it is, so they are now making the points hierarchical, although I think we would all agree that points 1-3 relate to Stepping Stones and 4-8 to ELGs, some of the points relate to more than one goal.

[AnonyMouse_1208]

At our moderation meeting the course leaders said that it was scales in reading and writing that were to be reviewed as they were deemed to be too hard - so I wouldn't worry too much about chn. achieveing these!!

[Guest]

I was told that you would expect many of the children to working in 4-6. 1-3 is working towards 7 is good, 8 ELG and 9 working in level 1. I think only about 2 of my children out of 23 will achieve 8 in some of the areas. If you score too high it has implications for year1. I hope this makes sense. I haven't used much punctuation.

[Guest]

Hiya.. Email on way

Thanks

Eve

[Guest]

So is it ok to tell parents when reporting on the profile that points 8 and 9 are working beyond the early learning goals i.e what is expected a 5 year old child to achieve? Obviously in the profile handbook it states that it is only level 9 that is working beyond, but we need to know officially if this has changed, otherwise how can we report accurately? To a parent the points are only meaningful if they know what is expected of children the same age as theres.

[AnonyMouse_1195]

The ELGs are about 1c National curriculum with a few variations and point 9 is usually about 2c which is your below average 7 year old. this give a roung guide as to attainment and is very helpful when making a judgement. These schores can be found in the addional guidance for SEN which matches the ELGs to the p levels and these give a National Curriculum score equivalent. I would only be scoring gifted and talented for a 9 otherwise you are setting everyone up to fail if they are not G&T at 5.

[AnonyMouse_79]

An excellent point Fiona!

 

I think I'd be saying something along the lines of the child has met ELGs and is working at the expected level for their age?

[AnonyMouse_3307]

Wary as i am to offer an opinion on the grounds that I might be shouted at again, I have this from our regional director at a training that included Lesley Staggs.

 

Points 1-3: Achievement below what is expected nationally

 

Points 4-5: Across all areas, a typical level of achievement

 

Points 6-7: Across all areas of learning, a good level of achievement

 

Points 8-9: Well above what is achieved nationally and aspects of level 1 to 2b NC.

 

This is based on the national data collected and is therefore an interpretation of what children have done against the profile. She did raise the question of whether or not some scales need looking at again in the light of this information but that is currently a discussion. I think that is why the ofsted inspector may be referring to 8 +9 as being beyond?

 

Oh and she also said that expecting all children to get 8 points is like expecting all children to get 100% which they don't.

 

Cx.

[AnonyMouse_1195]

I wont shout at you as it makes some sense to me. In fact I'm really pleased as I feel that i am doing quite well getting the majority of my children to 7/8. there are of course the others!!!

[AnonyMouse_79]

I'm not shouting either Catma!

Thats really interesting and vindicates the scoring I have insisted upon when scoring profiles even though they made my school one of the LEAs lowest, which didnt please those powers that be!

Shame we werent given these as more realistic attainments at the beginning.

[Guest]

Thanks Catma: that's the first time I've seen the information broken down in that way. I'm going to print it off and take it to work to discuss with my boss.

 

Maz

[Guest]

Thanks from me too catma. I had some children who came from a private nursery who had used the profiles last year. Unfortunately they arrived having already achieved point 8 in various areas!! and I had to prepare parents for the fact that their children probably wouldn't be scoring 9 be the end of Reception (or even scoring what they thought they had already done). This information will help me to show that their new scores are in line with national expectations.

 

harricroft

[Guest]

Okay, so they've gone... and it turns out we're doing great... I think we're going to get a very positive report. However, our area for development is writing. I can't say I whole-heartedly agreed with the inspector when she told me that our children should be producing better quality writing.

 

This year already, we have no children using symbols or letter strings, even the least able writers are producing sentences unaided with all the initial and some final phonemes.

 

All my children can link sounds to letters and the most able can easily sit down and produce two or three sentences of writing unaided (not always spelling EVERY word correctly, but having 'phonetically plausible attempts' at complex words!)

 

Everyone knows that the readng and writing scales on the FSP are overly hard to achieve in reception, and I heard that they are being reviewed to make them mmore achievable.

 

So anyhow, I'm not going to gabble on any more... I just wondered what kind of levels everyones writers were as I fear our SMT are going to use this as an excuse to make us teach more formally is recpetion (something I've fought off for a while).

[AnonyMouse_1208]

Your writing achievements sound great! Some of our less able aren't all able to write recognisable letters yet except those in their names)! Our more able are about at the same level as yours.

[AnonyMouse_3307]

according to the national data, writing, Linking sounds and letters and calculation are the weakest areas, can't recall the national average scores but I can get it from work tomorrow if i get to the office. Look at your LEA scores too and see how your writing average score compares?

[Guest]

Very useful discussion reflecting one I had with my Head the other day. I have some children who come to me scoring 7 in number. I know it is accurate because the preschool is attached and the supervisor is my TA in the mornings so she knows how we operate! I have several children who can easily work with numbers to 100 and beyond and last week one bot got completely carried away and wrote a whole page of sums using numbers to 1000!!! So where do they score????

Our LEA scores showed that as a school we were above average. I began to doubt my own judgements then. Am I scoring too high? Eek

[AnonyMouse_3307]

I wouldn't fret, if you know that's where a chid is than that's where they are! The averages are across all the data nationally so locally some will be better, some worse.

[Guest]

Magenta - think my kids are at a similar level to yours in writing. Paulparkie- I take my hat off to you with such achievement. Any pointers you can share with us?

[Guest]

HA... jolly phonics, jolly phonics, jolly phonics !

 

We were thinking fvor next year trying the synthetic phonics approach along side this... teaching letter/sound a day.

 

Has anyone tried this?

[Guest]

I hope I'm not joining in too late! Perhaps it's just me being dense but, like Susan, I was under the impression that points 4 - 8 for each area weren't dependent upon each other i.e. that each 'stood alone'. If this is true, what are the implications for Catma's breakdown? Does it mean that if children score ANY 4/5 points in one area that they are about average or does it mean specifically points 4 and 5? Am I making any sense or rambling incoherently? If it's ANY 4/5 points then I found Catma's breakdown really informative and think that it provides a fab picture of a 'typical' class. If it's only points 4 and 5 because the profile points are progressive then I'm really in trouble because I can't see, for example, how Writing 6 'Attempts writing for a variety of purposes, using features of diff forms' is simpler than Writing 8 'Begins to form captions and simple sentences, sometimes using punctuation'.

 

Am I being really dense? Can someone explain it really simply please?! Also, how do you all get to find out all this really knowledgeable stuff?

[Guest]

I do Jolly Phonics, and it works, but not got those results1

Am I being stupid, isn't JP a synthetic phonics prog?

I teach a sound a day with JP - well 4 a week.

[Guest]

Am I being stupid, isn't JP a synthetic phonics prog? 

 

33117[/snapback]

 

Are you sure you want to start this debate up again?!!! (In my book, and according to our LEA advisers, JP is a synthetic phonics prog).

[Guest]

Not wanting to start a debate! Just didn't understand an earlier post stating that they are hoping to run a synthetics prog ALONGSIDE JP.

Maybe I read it wrong... brain is mush from Report writing!

[Guest]

Wary as i am to offer an opinion on the grounds that I might be shouted at again, I have this from our regional director at a training that included Lesley Staggs.

 

Points 1-3: Achievement below what is expected nationally

 

Points 4-5: Across all areas, a typical level of achievement

 

Points 6-7: Across all areas of learning, a good level of achievement

 

Points 8-9: Well above what is achieved nationally and aspects of level 1 to 2b NC.

 

This is based on the national data collected and is therefore an interpretation of what children have done against the profile. She did raise the question of whether or not some scales need looking at again in the light of this information but that is currently a discussion. I think that is why the ofsted inspector may be referring to 8 +9 as being beyond?

 

Oh and she also said that expecting all children to get 8 points is like expecting all children to get 100% which they don't.

 

Cx.

32116[/snapback]

 

I still feel confused about scoring things. If we take on board what is said above by advisors, then how do you judge what is necessary to feel secure about highlighting a particular statement. For example I've scored a 7 on Language for Communication and Thinking on the basis of a child talking about the gingerbread man story saying: The fox sounded nice and clever, but really he was an enemy" That was one quote from the child, but I know that he consistently thinks things through in this way.

 

Help!

 

Angela

[AnonyMouse_3307]

They meant a total score of points not the numbers of the points gained. Eg child gets 1,2,3,4,6 = total of 5 which according to a regional director for FS is CURRENTLY within the range of a typical level of attainment when all the national data from last year was analysed. However I wouldn't be saying that that was OK, I'ld be looking at the points children didn't score and looking to see if practice/planning/policy etc etc had prevented it. The FSCG still shows an expectation that MOST children will meet the elgs, and some may go beyond them!

 

 

Angela, If the child does that consistently then give them the point!!!