Emerging, Developing, Secure

[AnonyMouse_4562]

Hi all,

This year we are going to use the Emerging, Developing, Secure system to assess and track our children for summative assessments(previously we were expected to just give the age and stage that they were secure in and used our own knowledge of the children to inform the next steps in learning for planning).

Just a little confused over the 'definitions' for Emerging and Secure. I am just thinking that if a children is secure in say 22-36 months, then that suggests that they would be 'emerging' in 30-50 months. So I just need to have a definate separation between the two. Could someone just give me a quick definition of what you would class as secure but not emerging - as in how you generally approach it, not what you would expect for each aspect.

Thanks

Green Hippo x

[AnonyMouse_19782]

We have been told to consider a child secure only when they are able to be consistent and independent in their knowledge of the DM statements. We have children who are obviously independent in 22-36 months for some DMs but they are also showing emerging points from 30-50 in the same learning area. Forever tricky! DMs are afterall only guidance, and children rarely follow the "prescribed" pathway, they do it in their own unique way I find.

[AnonyMouse_44055]

We will be using the expected, emerging and exceeding only for the end of reception ELGs assessment. In nursery and through the year we will use a best fit of which age band they fit in. If they have completed the vast majority of 22-36 in an area and are just beginning to work on 30-50 in that area I would suggest that as you say they are secure 22-36 but also emerging 30-50. I think this muddies the waters. We are in a school and I have to fit in with our progress monitoring practices and report termly assessments for data collection and analysis and will use where I think the children are secure as my assessment.

 

Mel

x

[AnonyMouse_4562]

Thanks,

We used to do best fit in age and stage to track progress, however, we feel that there can be such as difference in the children within each age band that we wanted to show where children were up to within the age and stage that they are working within.

Green Hippo x

[Helen]

This is such a tricky one isn't it? I don't think you can have a definite separation between two age bands because they overlap; and this was a very deliberate decision by the creators of the EYFS. :1b

[AnonyMouse_4562]

Just read through a few other threads and notice that some are using Emerging, developing and SECURING as opposed to SECURE. Thinking that using securing might make it easier to differentiate between the 2 ages and stages. What do others use? Still struggling to decided where to place children for my initial assessment that are around the border-line.

Just to check - I'm assuming when using the Emerging, developing and securing system that they should be emerging in 30-50 months at the beginning of Nursery? As if I assessed them as SECURING then that would suggest that they need just a little extra consolidation in 22-36 months?

Please reply if you can shine any light on this (hoping Catma might help out here??)

Thanks

Green Hippo x

[Guest]

I would say emerging is 30-50 and below (then you can have emerging 22-36, emerging 30-50, developing (40-60) and secure reached the ELGs.

[AnonyMouse_4562]

Sorry, I'm attempting to use emerging, developing, securing within each age and stage band. So I've just completed my initial assessments of my Nursery class whose expected 'level' is emerging 30-50 months - so I've used my observations to inform me as to whether I think they are emerging, developing or securing with the 30-50 months age and stage or the same in 22-36 months if not quite working within 30-50 months yet or 40-60 months where they are completely secure in 30-50 months.

Have found that using securing as opposed to secure has given a definate separation between the 2 ages and stages. Doing it this way allows me to show the difference between children who are still working within the same age and stage but some are just beginning to work within it and some are working well within it etc. Where as previously I just showed whether they were secure in an age and stage or not so children who you knew where working at different levels (but still within the same age and stage) were showing up on paper as being the same, if that makes sense!

Green Hippo x

[Guest]

I am using Emerging, consolidating and achieving - not sure where this came from or if it is the same as emerging, developing and securing/secure. Am feeling very unsecure!! How are you recording your information? We are developing a spread sheet so we can have data to compare (not working yet), but am just using simple table to record for everyday use.

[Guest]

My LA have asked us to record our baselines and assigned points to the emerging, developing and secure within each age band. However i have found I feel some children are secure in 30-50 for eg, but I wouldn't say they are showing any evidence in 40-60, so not yet emerging in that age band. The LA points score however give the same score to both these categories which then removes my subtle distinction and leaves 2 children with quite different abilities looking the same on paper. Their terminology has working within, competent until the end of 22-36 and then becomes working within (emerging), working within (secure) and competent.

[AnonyMouse_4562]

Isn't it interesting how we all interpret things differently.

For me Emerging 30-50 months is: completely secure in 22-36 months, a little evidence of 30-50 months starting to happen

Developing emerging 30-50 months: mainly evidence of 30-50 months, may be some 'glimmers' of 40-60 months

Securing 30-50 months: secure in most 30-50 months, but starting to work within 40-60 months i.e. just needs a little consolidation of 30-50 months

I interpret like this as the bands do overlap, and a meant as a best fit and also that the development matters statements are not set things to 'achieve' but strong examples of what we would expect to see. E.g. I have a boy in my class who can count and order numbers to 20 (would put him securing 40-60 months and he is only 3!) however, is other areas of number are within 30-50 months so I have assessed him as securing 30-50 months. I sought of picture it like an rainbow over the top of the ages and stages so as they progress it moves along over the ages and stages??? Maybe I'm hallucinating!

Green Hippo x

[Guest]

Thanks for sharing your interpretation Green Hippo. It does actually make more sense when I consider it that way. I'll go back and re-look at my data now x

[AnonyMouse_7120]

Am thinking about changing the tracking sheets we use to record E,D,S rather than just age bands as I think maybe staff are putting in higher band than they have enough evidence to show, I think this would give a more accurate picture, are any other nurseries/pre-schools using this way or is it just reception children being tracked this way ? Thanks