Emerging secure developing?

[Guest]

Is anyone using emerging developing and secure to show progress across the developmental bands. I was under the impression that we only used similar statements ie expected, emerging at the end of Reception against the ELG. I am feeling very confused!?!!!

 

Many thanks

[AnonyMouse_3307]

Many people use emerging developing securing to give a finer grade of assessment, particularly in schools where you have to show the effectiveness of your work via children's progress so it helps to not say they are still in 30 - 50 all year as on any data base that looks like 0 progress.

 

You don't have to do it though and Ofsted inspecting nurseries wouldn't be looking for that, they just want to see if children are working comfortably within the band that matches their age.

 

For the EYFSP the Emerging = anywhere in the dev matters birth - 40 to 60+ band, Expected = at the expected ELG outcome and Exceeding = working beyond the ELG, i.e. into the NC programme of study so is a different use of terminology. One is about progress the other is about attainment.

 

Cx

[AnonyMouse_3307]

And welcome to the forum!

[Guest]

Thank you so much. I am the FS Leader in a school that has 3 Rec classes and a large Nursery with 2-4 year olds. We had a lengthy debate yesterday after looking at the Nursery trackers and Reception e-profile results for April. The Nursery staff have got a lot of children working in the 40-60 months and the Reception teachers were saying if that is going to be their on entry data how will we show progress from Sept 2013 - July 2014. The nursery staff argued that they need to show progress and didn't want to keep them in the 30-50 months. I think I need to get us all together and do some moderation and define that dreaded phrase "best fit". Maybe devise some exemplification material for 30-50 and 40-60. Thoughts? : )

[Steve]

Hi Kerry ( and welcome to the forum) -

As Catma says, it's not compulsory at all to 'refine' the level within the age band that you feel a child is achieving at. However, it is one way of showing progress within these very wide EYFS age-bands (for example 22 - 36 months is over a year). A child of 2 years old who is assessed as 'emerging' at two years old, and 'secure' at approaching three years old can be declared as progressing perfectly satisfactorily, despite the fact that s/he is still operating within the same age band at both times. It overcomes the sometimes slightly panicky age-band inflation that, quite understandably, many providers feel the urge to participate in.

 

And it's certainly better than one of the popular alternatives, which is to use the statements as a measurement - by ticking them off over time, until they are all checked.

[Guest ChunkyMan]

We use eprofile which can be used from birth up to F2 and it uses the term entering, developing and secure in order to track progress throughout. If children are working within 40-60+ whilst in F1 then I would like to know to what extent. Using eprofile will help us to see this, some of our F1 children have been assessed as working within 40-60+ but only entering. I also think it is very useful to moderate across the Nursery and F2 in order to get clarity and agreement on what constitutes best fit etc.

[AnonyMouse_3307]

The Ofsted guidance for schools says that children would typically be emerging 30 - 50 on entry to nursery (i.e. the child is 36+ months) and then 40 - 60 emerging on entry to reception. The expected progression is to the ELG by the end of reception. obviously if children come in above national expectations then you would expect them to sustain higher outcomes later so getting the assessments reliable and accurate is very important for everyone.

 

Cx

[Guest]

if there are a lot in 40-60+ band april they must come in very high to start off. we don't place a child at secure in 30-50 unless displaying knowledge/skills in a variety of contexts and in CI and adult led activities. and we try to keep as low as possible as it makes it very hard for reception to show progress otherwise..... and they always dip in summer holidays..... you definately need to moderate your judgements between phase. x

[AnonyMouse_5970]

Hi Kerry ( and welcome to the forum) -

However, it is one way of showing progress within these very wide EYFS age-bands.

This is exactly why we use it. We are a day nursery with children aged 0 - 5. The EYFS age bands are so wide that it would be difficult to show progress without this refinement. I can understand why they are so wide, but a child can make a lot of progress in 20 months!

[AnonyMouse_3307]

You also have to ask yourself if you are saying a nursery child is e.g. secure 40 - 60 then you would actually be saying they were working at the level of a child at the end of the EYFS already! That would be like saying they were nearly ready for the national curriculum in reception. Now if they are really that gifted and talented then OK but it does help to convert the numbers codes into what does this actually say about the child's attainment relative to all the national expectations and what children typically attain developmentally.

 

Cx

[Steve]

I'm enjoying this very useful discussion, so on the assumption that others will also find it helpful I've pinned it to the top of this forum area.

[AnonyMouse_5970]

I doubt we'd often see a nursery child who was 'secure' right across the board at 40 - 60 months, but there might be some who were say 'secure' in Physical Development, Moving and Handling at 40 - 60 months, then 'developing' in all other areas, or 'secure' at 30 - 50 months. I'm not used to the terminology used in schools, so I'm not sure what the number codes are! :1b

[Guest]

You also have to ask yourself if you are saying a nursery child is e.g. secure 40 - 60 then you would actually be saying they were working at the level of a child at the end of the EYFS already! That would be like saying they were nearly ready for the national curriculum in reception. Now if they are really that gifted and talented then OK but it does help to convert the numbers codes into what does this actually say about the child's attainment relative to all the national expectations and what children typically attain developmentally.

 

Cx

 

Children who are secure 40-60 are not working at the level of children already at the end of the EYFS - they still need to achieve the ELGs. Have I misunderstood?

[AnonyMouse_3307]

Yes they would still need to meet the ELG, (although some LAs I know use the ELG as secure 40 - 60+ anyway so it's all a bit moot really) but my point is children would be typically and developmentally be working there or thereabouts towards the end of reception if you consider the progression from emerging 40 - 60+ on entry as the identified national expectation for on entry to reception. Most children I have moderated at the minute who are not at the goal are well within 40 - 60+, and at this point in the academic year I would say this is near the end of the EYFS in terms of time left for teaching and making final EYFSP assessments.

 

I'm not used to the terminology used in schools, so I'm not sure what the number codes are!

The age band descriptors, i.e. 30 - 50 etc. They act as a code which we all use but sometimes I think we don't think about what they actually say about a child's development in relation to national expectation and comparative outcomes in older children in the EYFS.

Edited May 19, 2013 by catma

[AnonyMouse_5664]

Some of our nursery children are entering reception with the chronological age of 58 months. So to assess them as emerging in 40-60 , would you still expect to find them at the beginning of this age and stage? Wouldn't they be further along, developmentally? Which gives reception a problem with fewer DMs left to focus on, before you start looking at the ELG????

[AnonyMouse_30944]

This is an interesting discussion. As a Reception teacher, we expect most children to be entering Reception working at emerging 40 - 60+, with exceptions at either end. A lot of Headteachers are very clear that this is what they expect in terms of data, regardless of where children 'really' are. A similar principle for end of year data is expected, otherwise KS1 data will be skewed - 'exceeding' is frowned upon. I spent many years fighting this as children in Reception were never allowed to make outstanding progress (although this was OK in KS1!) but it has been fruitless, so I now play the numbers game dutifully and just get on with teaching the children in ways that I know work best.

 

If a child at the end of Nursery was to be assessed as secure 40 - 60+ then I would expect to see similar outcomes as I do from Reception children at the end of year. We have been told that Secure 40 - 60+ is the ELG, so children would be reading and writing independently, doubling and halving etc.

[AnonyMouse_19762]

If a child at the end of Nursery was to be assessed as secure 40 - 60+ then I would expect to see similar outcomes as I do from Reception children at the end of year. We have been told that Secure 40 - 60+ is the ELG, so children would be reading and writing independently, doubling and halving etc.

 

Wonder how many pre-school/nursery practitioners have that understanding :blink: not me for one - if I have assessed as secure 40-60 months I wouldn't be thinking about ELG :blink: ........hmmm - would be interesting to have others thoughts on this.......I might have to 'go back to the drawing board' on this then :1b

[AnonyMouse_30128]

surely secure 40-60is just that...it's not elg

[AnonyMouse_19762]

surely secure 40-60is just that...it's not elg

 

That was my understanding finleysmaid - but now I'm wondering if I have got this wrong :blink: it is important that we are all singing from the same songsheet :1b

[AnonyMouse_30128]

been moderated this week ...this is not what we are being told.....40-60 months is an age band it is NOT the ELG (if it was some of my schools would be panicking as ive got a few on 40-60 months and if they dont want them on NC1 by the end of next year they won't be able to show progress)

[AnonyMouse_5664]

I think it shows up more in PSE, pd and cl. If they are chronologically 58 months, they could well arrive in reception as developing well within those areas of learning.mobviuosly it's a different ball game in literacy and numeracy, especially now the bar has been raised.

[AnonyMouse_5664]

I think it shows up more in PSE, pd and cl. If they are chronologically 58 months, they could well arrive in reception as developing well within those areas of learning.mobviuosly it's a different ball game in literacy and numeracy, especially now the bar has been raised.

Forgot to add developing well within 40-60 months.

[AnonyMouse_4562]

Hi,

Yes we definitely have been told that 40-60+ months is SEPARATE to the ELGs - hence why the ELGs are still in bold. Our LAs 'scoring' document that we are piloting this year asks us 7 for emerging 40-60, 8 for securing 40-60 and 9 for ELG, 10 for exceeding ELG. I wish that they included 'developing' but many of the schools were having difficulty getting their heads around emerging and securing that they decided not the complicate it further. I find that there can still be a quite a difference between 2 children that are both classed in the same 'bracket' e.g. many of my children were at securing 30-50 for the last summative assessment in February but there are those children that are very nearly emerging 40-60 and those that are just beyond emerging 30-50 but can only be classed securing 30-50. I tried to add a developing section to my own assessments but it became impossible to then translate it back to just emerging and securing. I have settled on the fact that if anyone asked me about the individual children I could easily tell them that x is very nearly emerging 40-60 months but y needs more time to consolidate 30-50 months and I know their individual strengths and weaknesses.

To be honest, what I find most difficult is the areas that are now together e.g. Gross and fine motor - I have got a few children who are great at the gross motor - well within 40-60 months but still need a lot of practise with their fine-motor - I then have a struggle as to where they 'best fit' - I almost feel like splitting these sections up again to help me to show where they are up to. I have never used the development matters as a tick sheet but can see why this would be helpful to show the differences in AOLs like this. What I may do is split the tracking form up next year as this is what we use as our working document to show areas of need.

Green Hippo x

[AnonyMouse_3307]

I do think we tend to forget it is 40 months to 60 plus months - the plus was included originally in 2008 to expand the band to accommodate the children who enter reception at nearly 5 and those who enter just 4 so everyone had somewhere to go. It's the only band with a plus so this is still my view of it.

 

I really would expect to see the same degree of independent application of embedded skills in any child being assessed as secure in 40 - 60+, regardless of them being in nursery or reception, just as I would expect a child at phase 3 phonics to have the same skill set as any other child at phase 3, regardless of age. If a child genuinely enters reception as secure 40 - 60 then I would expect quality first teaching to get them to exceeding and be working within the NC after a year, because to expect less would be to reduce your expectations for a child who is working at a higher age related expectation than their peers.

 

The ELG being in or outside the 40 - 60+ band? It's a matter of opinion I think. There's no document I have seen that defines this except for the Ofsted subsidiary guidance for schools. Ofsted however do not use that for any description of children elsewhere in the EYFS. The ELG in my opinion is an assessment criteria and is not a developmental stage so for me it is outside the development band. When you get to the goal you either are or are not demonstrating the skills within it, and you are assessed against it wherever you are by definition of the EYFSP outcomes.

 

Cx

[AnonyMouse_5664]

What about the things that are only in the ELG but don't actually feature in the 40-60 DM band?

[AnonyMouse_30128]

i was thinking the same thing myself dreamgirl.....are reception classes not teaching to acheive the ELG'S ? i HAVE SOME CHILDREN WHO I WOULD DESCRIBE AS BEING SECURE BUT STILL DONT MEET THE elg descriptor

 

for example

 

 

• Confident to speak to others about own needs, wants, interests and opinions.

 

• Can describe self in positive terms and talk about abilities.

Children are confident to try new activities, and say why they like some activities more than others. They are confident to speak in a familiar group, will talk about their ideas, and will choose the resources they need for their chosen activities. They say when they do or don’t need help.

 

a child who is confident to tell you about their needs is not always confident to TRY new actvities...finding their own resources is not in the DM....i could go on!

[Guest]

Yes, Finleysmaid - I couldn't agree more!!

[AnonyMouse_3307]

But the dev matters descriptors are not the curriculum though are they. The curriculum is defined in the learning and development requirements in the statutory guidance. The ELGs consist of skills and understanding that are contained within the preceding DMs, but not always the adjacent one, sometimes being highlighted at 30 - 50 for example but implicit in the statutory curriculum and assessed as part of the goal at the end. The goal reflects the statutory curriculum not just what is in 40 - 60+.

 

E.g. PSED:

Personal, social and emotional development involves helping children to develop a positive sense of themselves, and others; to form positive relationships and develop respect for others; to develop social skills and learn how to manage their feelings; to understand appropriate behaviour in groups; and to have confidence in their own abilities.

 

So I think you would be developing these skills at all stages regardless of what the non statutory DM doc says and the goal describes the curriculum in terms of nationally expected outcomes, just as the DM descriptors provide a best fit set of outcomes to assess children against along the way.

 

So yes, teachers teach to get children to the goal, but they don't necessarily teach "to the goal" and if a child attains the expected outcome earlier than their peers then they would have to begin the NC curriculum as a next step.

 

I don't think how the bands are "split" really makes that much difference really...some LAs use 2 splits, some 3, is one of them wrong? It's a construct to help show progress where showing progress is demanded. Whether a child is labelled secure at the Goal within 40 - 60+ or outside of 40 - 60+ we're still saying they are at the ELG aren't we???

Cx

Edited May 21, 2013 by catma

[AnonyMouse_30128]

The problem is though that the scant information in the statutory requirements does not a curriculum make!....which is why we all use (well most) the DM's and i have to say this appears to be what ofsted are expecting to see too...or at least a well written alternative (which i haven't seen anyone do yet!)

 

E.g. PSED:

Personal, social and emotional development involves helping children to develop a positive sense of themselves, and others; to form positive relationships and develop respect for others; to develop social skills and learn how to manage their feelings; to understand appropriate behaviour in groups; and to have confidence in their own abilities.

Looking at this statement i wonder how many adults would acheive this !

We have to have some thresholds if we are to compare and assess all the children in our care .....the dm's are the only thresholds we have been given so it is not surprising that we are using them is it?

 

I guess the other issue is that if we do not 'break down' the ELG's into managable chunks then some less experienced practititoners may push children into inappropriate activities at too early a stage which would have serious impacts later on

[AnonyMouse_4562]

The debate goes on! A great discussion.

This might be over-complicating things but when breaking down the DM ages and stages into either emerging, developing and securing or just emerging and securing, I view that word 'securing' as opposed to 'secure' as very important. I may be completely wrong here but if I am saying that a child is 'secure' then for me they will be already 'emerging' in the next 'age and stage' - as in I couldn't say they are still working within that age and stage, they are further on than that. If I think of 'securing' then this to me says 'working well within/nearly there' which really separates it from emerging in the next age and stage. So, in terms of using the ELG as a separate section - I would say that these are the children that are more than 'securing' in 40-60 months so are completely SECURE in all those skills within 40-60 and above e.g. now we need to be looking towards NCL1.

Sorry if that all sounds a bit complicated,

Green Hippo x