EEXba reports are out today, have you looked at maths?

[Guest]

Hi wondered if you'd looked at the eexba reports yet for your cohort yet? They came out today and I've just had a quick look and am quite shocked by maths. Most of the other areas for my class are in line with where I have placed them on target tracker. Because nearly all of my children could recognise a couple of numbers and count 3 or 4 items that means according to eexba that 78% of my children are above expectations!!!! In fact most of them are still working within 30-50 or below so I certainly wouldn't put them as working above. Thoughts?

Deb

[Guest]

I am very surprised by both the Literacy and Maths result - all of the other areas are as expected for my school but strangely 65% are typical in Literacy!!!! however 90% are below typical in maths!!!! I looked at the Record Sheet and still can't make sense of it.

They do say this in the reporting dashboard:

 

Due to the different ways in which DM are being interpreted it would not be possible for us to give a single formula so we have provided a 'broad conversion' as follows:

• EExBA (a) statements defined as typical for on-entry to reception link best with '40-60 emerging' in Development Matters. This is not a precise science and is based on the assumption that '30-50 secure' is the same as '40-60 emerging'.
• EExBA (b) statements defined as above typical link with '40-60 developing', '40-60 secure' or 'ELG' depending on the actual assessment statement and Development Matters. This link will need to be determined by practitioners, based on their full knowledge of the child.

Being secure in 30-50 is not the same as emerging/entering 40-60. Our LA gave us this advise when assessing baseline attainment:

 

ENTERING-The child will be demonstrating a few (3 approx) of the elements of the band having already showed competence in the previous band. If a child has not demonstrated competence in the previous band the child is still securing the previous band even if they have a few elements of the next band. (competence would be shown by demonstrating most or all elements of a band)

 

DEVELOPING-The child is demonstrating many (50% approx) of the elements of the band.

 

SECURING-The child will be demonstrating most (80-100%) of the elements of the band.

[Guest]

That's the problem I have children who can only recognise a couple of numbers and can just about count 4 items accurately and they scored but they are not yet secure in understanding and are inconsistent so are the refuel still working within 30-50. Getting them to expected by the end of the year is going to be a struggle. Worried about the implications of eexba baseline upon potential expectations for this cohort at the end of year and beyond!

[AnonyMouse_26037]

I've just had a quick skim and I think mine are roughly what I was expecting. I was very ruthless on the 'if at all in doubt the answer is no!' approach when entering the data. The longer term implications of anything we put in have always been a worry. If they're being used as a measure of progress to the end of Y6 it's so long before we can start drawing any conclusions about possible links.

 

I'm a little confused by the number each one has been given - can anyone give me any further information?

 

I'm also immensely frustrated in that I can see all the data, lovely charts, colours reports etc. but I can't get it to print out - just get the headings, names and numbers - no indication of whether someone is typical or not for a particular area of learning.

[Guest]

Also a quick scan today and also rather taken aback by the high number of 'typical' children we have - I really do not agree with the 30-50s= 40-60e assumption and will be taking this view to the training I'm going to about how to use the data in December.

 

I can't find an overall picture - what we used to call 'national' - to get an idea of how we fit in with everyone else - any ideas?

 

Froglet, I think the numbers are just a count of the number of ticks - I'm only guessing here, haven't been back to the paper copies we used to collate data before inputting (I know I shouldn't have, but there we are - belt and braces!).

 

I'm going to put it away on a high shelf in a couple of days and leave it to mature. We'll use target tracker as usual to track children through the school, and come back to this baseline if it's still in any way relevant in three years time.

[AnonyMouse_26037]

 

I can't find an overall picture - what we used to call 'national' - to get an idea of how we fit in with everyone else - any ideas?

 

 

 

The impression I have (and I think it came from the various e-mails I had from EExBa is that this will be only available at the data training which you are strongly encouraged to go to. I have to say that while I liked the EExBa version (in so far as you can 'like' something you don't really want to do anyway!) I haven't liked the heavy push on attending additional training since signing up. I know we can (at least for this year) claim back the cost of doing the baseline from DfE - although precisely how is pretty vague but I don't remember being able to claim the training day cost and certainly not the cost of supply cover to let me go. More days out starts to push it when budgets are tight. Plus both I and my head are experienced when it comes to interpreting data. The EExBa reports are, so far, straightforward to generate and understand. I didn't think that paying to go on a training day was that necessary but I would like to know the national figures.

 

 

 

Froglet, I think the numbers are just a count of the number of ticks - I'm only guessing here, haven't been back to the paper copies we used to collate data before inputting (I know I shouldn't have, but there we are - belt and braces!).

 

 

That was my feeling too - I have an idea that maybe the b statements were worth 2 points each and the a 1? I suppose what I'm interested in is whether there are particular boundaries used to determine how 'typical' a child is - I'd like to know whether they were borderline below or above or only just there!

[AnonyMouse_26037]

One thing I did think about is how little impact experience can have in a situation like this. I have one little boy - brilliant at number recognition and order and the only one in the cohort who could name and sound most of the letters of the alphabet. However, I have a gut feeling that something is not quite right and that he will struggle when it comes to applying or using the facts he knows. In my personal baseline this has an impact as I am making predictions about where he'll get to by the end of the year.

[AnonyMouse_47865]

 

I'm also immensely frustrated in that I can see all the data, lovely charts, colours reports etc. but I can't get it to print out - just get the headings, names and numbers - no indication of whether someone is typical or not for a particular area of learning.

To get it to print the colours in the aspects report, you need to select 'background graphics ' in printer properties. It took me a copy of attempts before I found this out.

[AnonyMouse_3307]

My thoughts for what they are worth.

 

The baseline isn't about the outcomes at the end of the EYFS phase - the EYFSP still is for 2016.

The baseline is about where they are in 2022 - hence I assume any individual score will be progress matched to the equivalent Yr6 score children will get then.

There cannot be a National data set when this is an optional assessment selected from three by a school.

The baseline isn't going to give you the wide range of knowledge that you will need or see within the other areas of learning and how children apply their skills in different contexts.

The age bands themeselves are non statutory and therefore any given definition of typical is only a professional judgement by any of us including Baseline providers. It is not a given or an absolute.

 

Cx

[AnonyMouse_26037]

Catma - thanks for saying that about a national data set. I'd not thought of it like that - another 'duh' moment!

 

I think as a process overall I didn't feel like it was additional work just that I couldn't use it on its own to get the picture I usually do but I was expecting that anyway.

 

2022 just seems a really long way off!

[AnonyMouse_26037]

To get it to print the colours in the aspects report, you need to select 'background graphics ' in printer properties. It took me a copy of attempts before I found this out.

 

Can you point me in the right direction - I can't find 'background graphics' anywhere in properties nor anything I think might be it under another name! I can print the thing with words on but it's really hard to read. At this rate I'm going to be transferring it to my own spreadsheet which I find easier to use and manipulate anyway but kind of defeats the purpose!

[AnonyMouse_47865]

Can you point me in the right direction - I can't find 'background graphics' anywhere in properties nor anything I think might be it under another name! I can print the thing with words on but it's really hard to read. At this rate I'm going to be transferring it to my own spreadsheet which I find easier to use and manipulate anyway but kind of defeats the purpose!

Are you using Google Chrome to look at the EEXBA site? They recommend that is the best browser to view/print reports.

Background graphics is in one of the drop down boxes.. I'm sure it's printer properties but on my iPad at the moment and can't check until tomorrow as computer is at school.

Edited November 3, 2015 by broadlea

[AnonyMouse_26037]

Are you using Google Chrome to look at the EEXBA site? They recommend that is the best browser to view/print reports.

Background graphics is in one of the drop down boxes.. I'm sure it's printer properties but on my iPad at the moment and can't check until tomorrow as computer is at school.

 

Thank you. Don't have Chrome at school although I do use it at home. I did finally manage to print one of the reports off today - used someone else's computer which had a newer version of IE on it. It had 'original' splashed across it in large letters but it was readable and I had something I could give to my HT!

[Guest]

I've realised why my maths looks so high, the children scored really well on the SSM statements (duh!) when you look at the number statements on their own the picture is very different. How this data is used when this cohort reach Y6 really concerns me.

Deb

[Guest]

Thanks Catma - calm as always! I understand that it isn't a 'national' set, but nevertheless it is a large collection of data, and I'd still like to have a feel of the overall picture. I'm still feeling as though I'm bobbing around in the middle of a large ocean and I'd just like a glimpse of the horizon I guess!

 

I wonder how the argument that a definition of 'typical' is a matter of professional judgement will play out when we are looking at progress in seven years time - could be some very interesting discussions to come!

 

Froglet I do agree wholeheartedly about the push for training - we are going to go to the events, because of the needing to touch base as mentioned above, but do feel that I don't really need to interpret this data any more than I can for myself because I'm not going to use it for anything at all until end of Year 2 at the earliest. using Target Tracker as always for tracking in school.

 

What a palaver it all is!

[AnonyMouse_73]

Does anyone know of the 3 baseline providers are likely to publish anything from their data.. I got the feeling that they wouldn't be but others may know better?

 

There will always be an element of professional judgment in any assessments we do, Personally IM completely with EExBA on seeing secure in one band the same as emerging in the next, Ive never understood why you would break down the bands into 3 as the more parts you have the more likely you are to be counting ticks/statements. But clearly others see it differently.

 

I did wonder if yesterdays announcement that the govt want to re introduce national testing for 7 year olds is down to suddenly realizing that there isn't going to be a national data set after next year, and 2022 is a long way off!

[AnonyMouse_3307]

I did wonder if yesterdays announcement that the govt want to re introduce national testing for 7 year olds is down to suddenly realizing that there isn't going to be a national data set after next year, and 2022 is a long way off!

Of course it is!!

[AnonyMouse_26037]

Does anyone know of the 3 baseline providers are likely to publish anything from their data.. I got the feeling that they wouldn't be but others may know better?

 

 

 

I don't know but I don't think so. I was at a baseline working group meeting a couple of weeks ago and the LA seemed to know very little and it seems to be up to us to choose to share any of the baseline info with them. They knew very little beyond the initial information as there hadn't been space for them to attend any of the training.

[AnonyMouse_3307]

 

I don't know but I don't think so. I was at a baseline working group meeting a couple of weeks ago and the LA seemed to know very little and it seems to be up to us to choose to share any of the baseline info with them. They knew very little beyond the initial information as there hadn't been space for them to attend any of the training.

Nope - the optional baseline has nothing to do with the LA. Which is how the DfE want it.