Target setting from profile

[AnonyMouse_47127]

Hi

 

I was wondering if anybody knew if it is likely that if children meet "expcected" levels of attainment in the prime areas that they will be expected to be at least level 2 at the end of year 2. I only ask as I am finding there is a VAST range of ability within my children who have attained expected, from those who have just met the criteria to those who don't quite make exceeding. I feel a little nervous aboout how this data will be used to set targets for my colleagues. Anybody heard anything??

 

Thanks

 

J

[Guest]

I work in a nursery that is part maintained part private attached to a school.

 

I feel that however well the children do in the early years, the staff in year one are beaten over the head with this (metaphorically speaking of course) because there isnt an adequate way of using the EYFS to forecast where the children are likely to get in year one and then SATS year 2.

 

Last year we found that the points the children got at the end of the reception year in the profile were being taken sometimes out of context.

For instance the overall score was being used to predict where children would be in time to come and then when they didnt reach these the staff in year one were being moaned at

The predictions were being made without knowing where the points came from if you get what I mean?!!!

 

So someone scoring high on PSE and Physical skils and expressive arts and design were maybe not doing so well in language and literacy and number but these scores werent broken down and used effectively.

 

Well thats my opinion anyway|!!!

 

Of course none of this really helps you! Sorry. Went off on one there!!!!!!!!!

[AnonyMouse_3307]

What will really matter is the good level of develop measures - you need to use these really to get picture of who is secure across the GLD ELGs. Your school will have had information on this from the DfE or it can be found on their website.

 

Cx

[Guest]

Although I think I understand the GLD measures it still confuses me...I cannot get my head around the fact that my less able and some of my average children will appear to have not made a good level of development in say, writing, because they may not be able to write in sentences - but they may have made excellent progress in writing in relation to where they were in September, e.g knowing no sounds, unable to write name etc and then now being able to write simple words and forming letters, attempting to write for a purpose etc will not be a good level if development?? It is surely good development for that individual child.

I know I have a good chunk of children who are already at ELG in writing and I have others that will get there but I am concerned that there will be a large amount who may not reach this expectation. Am I alone in thinking this way??

E x

[AnonyMouse_3307]

It's the difference between progress and attainment. Yes they may have made good progress, but their attainment (measured against a national benchmark) is not at the expected level.

 

However don't forget it is a best fit - i.e. they may be weaker in writing sentences than in the other skills of the ELG but if the goal best fits their skill set they would be at the expected level of development. If you were to look at 40 - 60 or below are they better than that? If so the goal may be the best fit.

Cx

[Guest]

Writing is our target and I feel at the moment it is our main focus. We are working hard with the children to develop their sentences, but agree with emmakparr that some children have made such progress to get to writing their name as knew no sounds at all, it all seems so unfair. My understanding is that I will put these children on emerging in the ELG for writing.