Predicting Yr 2 Sats

[Guest]

I know this discussion has probably been had before, but I need some advice. My Head has given me the job of finding a way to somehow predict yr 2 sat results from ideally a nursery baseline or definately the profile scores. I know that it isnt that easy to use the profile against the NC levels but Im sure others are doing this already. Can anyone share with me what they are doing? Thanks

[Guest]

I've used last year's FSP scores to set targets for reading, writing and maths for the end of Y1 and Y2. The Standards Site is now stating that children who score 6 on the FSP should be expected to achieve a level 2b by the end of Y2 whilst a score of 8 means that a child is expected to achieve a level 3. You can find this information here: question/answer 9, paragraph 3.

 

As a FSP score of 6 is meant to equate to a target of 2b and 8=Level 3 then I've presumed that 7 would mean a target of 2a, 5=2c, 4=1a, 3= 1b, etc.

 

The targets for the SATs reading have been set by combining the scores for 'Linking Sounds and Letters' and 'Reading' then dividing them by 2. Likewise the targets for Maths were set by adding up the 3 strands of MD then dividing by 3.

 

I've also used the predicted SATs scores to 'track back' (basing my figures on the fact that children working within the National Curriculum are meant to progress at least 2 sub-levels each year) in order to give end of year targets for Y1. So children who scored 6 on the FSP for 'Writing' have been set targets of 2b for the end of Y2 and 1a for the end of Y1.

Edited September 28, 2006 by Guest

[Guest]

but should you be doing this????? this is not what the profile was meant to be used for!!!!!!

[Guest]

Moose - how do you do it?? I've been asked to produce this info and haven't known where to start. Thanks for this.

 

I know we have to show 'value added' but I'm not sure we're really doing our best for the children Off the top of my head I can think of potential problems eg. the FSP reading points don't really show a child's ability to 'read' to some extent. Children who have a good understanding of oral structures, can retell stories, recognise the difference between print/pics and can point to where print starts and show an understanding of non-fiction books could score a 7 without necessarily being able to recognise more than 'a few familiar words' - are they really going to be border line level 3?

[Guest]

Hi Baxter: I agree - I don't think we should be doing this. After all, you don't fatten the pig by weighing it, do you?! However, this is the climate we work in now: everything is about proving the value you add to children.

 

At a moderation meeting at the beginning of the last academic year they raised the subject of making correlations between profile and SATs scores. I raised the issue that this wasn't comparing like-with-like. However, their argument was that the figures had been created by analysis. They had looked at the first set of children who had been assessed using the FSP and then looked at their SATs scores and this was the pattern they noticed.

 

Perhaps you could stand up and be counted and say the FSP wasn't meant to be used to predict SATs scores but I think you'd be batting on a sticky wicket. When I was Ofsted-ed last term I got asked an awful lot of facts and figures about where children were when they came in and where they would be when they left. I honestly believe that I wouldn't have been graded as highly as I was if I hadn't had my eye on where the children were going and what they would be capable of achieving. The information in Q9 on the Standards Site also makes it quite clear that inspectors are likely to look at this sort of information.

 

This is the first year that, as a school (for that read 'me'!), we have set targets, using the FSP data. Maybe it isn't perfect and I shall be interested in seeing how the figures pan out. However, I feel good that our backs are covered, so to speak, and I'm hoping it will mean that the children in Y1 now have differentiated targets that are based on something tangible.

 

Hi Harricroft - I absolutely agree about the 'Reading' statements - I think they're hard and yet wooly at the same time! That's partly why I've combined the scores for 'Linking Sounds and Letters' with 'Reading': whilst you might have a child who is good at decoding text their comprehension skills might be poor or vice versa. By combining the 2 scores I hope that this will give a more overall view of what a child can do currently and is likely to do in the future.

 

Of course, once again all this raises the issue of over-generous scoring of the profile. If they're going to start looking really closely at the value-added between Foundation and KS1 then people who score all their children off as 8s and 9s (and I've sat in moderation meetings where this has happened) are going to have, I think, serious questions to answer.

 

I'm contemplating placing a wager at the bookies (can't think of the names of any - how sad is that?) that if the powers-that-be continue to look closely at this information then FSP scores will go right down.

[AnonyMouse_79]

Well done Moose! Glad someone can make some sense out of this nonsense.

[Guest]

Hi there

 

I went to a regional moderation conference on Tuesday for the West Midlands and a speaker from the National Assessment Agency talked about making predictions and he said that the theory of 6 profile points equating to a 2b at the end of key stage 1 is unfounded and not accurate. This really confused me because I was under the impression that 6 points could translate into a 2b. He did say that it was likely that a child with 9 would achieve a level 3 but I suppose that is kind of obvious as 9 points are pretty unique!! It did start a discussion as people said the demands to prove value added is been put on all of us. But that was the message from the horses mouth, i just wish they would make their minds up!

[AnonyMouse_4544]

Slightly off track...............our SEN teacher has just tested Y1 on a 'reading test' (not Salford which we use in school) One child I scored 5 on the FSP in reading has come out with a reading age of 12.9 years (chronological age 5.7) he has excellent decoding skills but no understanding

[Guest]

Agree with those who say don't try and correalate levels and FSP scores, and County advisors agree with me too and say to stick to FSP. They also say don't assess Y1 on nat curric levels until they have been in Y1 for half a term, transition will be over then and they will be settled and working at true levels. Fantastic I say.

Trouble is everyone's SLTeam (and yes I am on the team and try to fight for what I think!), especially the heads want those beginning level records in NC terms so that they can get target setting and performance management targets under their belts, especially if they are waiting for the phonecall!

It is so frustrating but I think we just have to make it clear that any matching of levelling between has to be taken with a large pinch of salt! County have said this too and when they gave us a FSP and NC matching sheet said to emphasise this with the heads.

I think as practitioners we just need to emphasise this with everyone, how can you assess a Y1 child on the NC when they are still working on the FSP!?

Phew bit of a rant then sorry!

Liz x

[Guest]

Hi liz,

 

Could you post the matching sheet?

 

Thanks

[Guest]

Will have a look for it at work tomorrow. Know I can only access it from school intranet, I will save it on my stick and see if I can post it tomorrow.

Liz x

[Guest]

I agree that you shouldn't be assessing Foundation children against NC levels and that the profile scores are most definitely not NC level equivalents. However, that's very different from setting targets of where you would like to get children to in the future - based on their current level of achievement which is surely an indication of their innate potential. Also, at the end of the day, they are only targets and as such are not set in stone. Of course there will always be variables: gender, date of birth, external factors etc.

 

There is also, perhaps, an argument that if we don't use FSP assessments as a tool for possible targets then what is the point of doing/recording them at all? I know that some of us feel that our assessments are not always valued by our colleagues in Y1 and it would be a pity if we ourselves devalue our assessments by not seeing ourselves as being part of the bigger picture. Although we work in different key stages both Foundation and KS1 are part of a much bigger learning journey, with experiences and knowledge gained impacting on what it is possible to achieve in the future. Isn't that why we all work so hard to capture every child's interest and ensure that their individual potential is fulfilled?

Edited September 28, 2006 by Guest

[Guest]

Right here we are, the tracking sheets from rec to ks1, advice on POSSIBLE FSP scores and where they could be at the end of KS1 and correalation between FSP, stepping stones and NC levels.

 

This comes from advice given to us by our County assessment team, but with the strict proviso that IT IS NOT TO BE USED AS A FORMULA and is only a rough guide!!

 

Liz x

 

Actually Steve you may have a point about sharing these, sorry guys I have removed the attachments. When you have something so useful it is easy to share with everyone and not to think about who gave it to you.

Big big apologies if I have annoyed or upset anyone, hopefully removing the bits will make it ok.

Edited October 1, 2006 by Guest

[Steve]

Hmm. Thanks for sharing these Liz, but I'm a little concerned that Herts LA may not look too kindly on you reproducing them without permission. Do you have any contacts with the originators to check they don't claim any copyright over them?

[Guest]

I am very worried about some of the comments I have read here

Why do we predict childrens end of year 2 teacher assessment grades?

How will this help children make progress?

There are 6 equal areas of FS curriculum and it should be argued PSE has a great weighting in childrens development - if pse is monitored across years 1 and 2 - would the children's positive disposition and attitude to learning dip - might this have some bearing on their eventual teacher assessment summary?

Should we be proving to Ofsted / parents, our colleagues that we know our children very well and can talk about their prgress, strengths, areas for development, learning styles etc - not jumping to a conclusion that they (Ofsted) want number scores or going against our principles to reduce children to a graph of narrow skills - jumping 2 years of their life to what they might get at end Y2?

NAA / QCA advise is not to use random formulas or pins to predict what might happen against FSP/NC - yet we continue to ignore them

LGM

[AnonyMouse_4544]

Even worse I have heard of FSPs being used to predict KS2 SATs

[Guest]

Are we talking about targets or predictions? The two are very different, I think. A prediction is based on nothing more than smoke and mirrors - an eeny, meeny, miney, mo approach. However a target is looking where the children currently are and setting them realistic goals in order to allow them to be the very best that they possibly can be. As such, targets are fluid as current assessments will always influence them - as it should be. If assessments are rigorous and honest then targets are nothing more than 'step forwards' or 'what we think this child would benefit from next'. This is something we do all the time anyway, isn't it? If you have a child who struggles with their mathematical development then you'll be happy for, and proud of, them when they learn to tag to 10 - or even 3 if that's where they are. For a child who has a gift for maths then you would challenge and extend them by looking for what they need to do next.

 

I've set the targets for my children from last year because I was asked to. I don't have a problem with that. However, I still see them as more than figures. I look at them now and see the children who have the potential to learn and grow to be athletes, or engineers, or lovely mums or any of the other myriad things that their genes, life experiences, interest and innate abilities are equipping them for. They don't know about their 'targets' - that's my job.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Guest

[AnonyMouse_79]

Dont disagree with you, LGM.

Yet we, the workforce, are being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea when our heads require these things of us. Someone tells them what they need too so why all the mixed messages?

[Guest]

a couple of years ago I was asked to predict Y2 National Curriculum scores from the profile, I emailed the powers that be and this was the reply;

 

 

"The Foundation Stage profile was never intended to provide an input measure for KS1 value added. When the Foundation Stage was launched this was clearly stated as a matter of policy.

 

The eProfile cannot therefore provide estimates of children's likely levels of attainment at the end of KS1.

 

John Bertram"

 

 

this was direct from the dfees ( is that too many e's??!)

 

Lets stand firm and refuse to predict for the numbers game.

[AnonyMouse_4544]

Hi annie welcome to the forum

[Guest]

This year the first children to be assessed against the profile were also assessed against the KS1 SATs. In my school I have analysed those scores at end of KS1 against the children's assessments in the profile statements. However I simply compared reading with reading , S&L with S&L and added the three maths profile scores and divided by three. I also unlike whoever made that reply on the standards site considered that (according to the criteria of the profile itself)

level 9 children were working at level 1 National Curriculum - therefore I assumed a minimum score of 1C and then like moose took their own assumption of 2/3rds of level progress per year and I could then make a judgement of whether children had exceeded, met or fell short of expectation.

Again based on the profile criteria I assumed 7,8 children to be 'working at the early learning goals' so clearly not yet 1c at the end of reception (otherwise they would have scored 9) and therefore assuming they would achieve 1b by the end of year one and 2c by their KS1 SAT.

Levels 4,5,6 I assumed to be working within the ELG's and allowing them to reach 1C by the end of year one and 1A by the end of KS1.

Levels 1-3 I assumed to be 'working below the ELG's ' and therefore allowed them to be at 'W' at the end of year one and therefore an expectation to achieve 1B by KS1 SATs.

 

THe reason the powers that be have scored it differently is because the model that suggests progression of 2/3rds of a level per year IS A TOP DOWN MODEL. They have started from what is an average score at KS2 SAT's and worked downwards, however this does not then dovetail with the Foundation Stage Profile. BEWARE OF THIS if you are doing this sort of analysis. I will return to this later but Ihave to go shopping

[Guest]

My LEA based their calculations on the children who entered Reception in 2002. This was the information we were given last year and we were asked to act upon it.

 

My understanding is that some of the statements for point 9 on the profile are actually equivalent to a level 2b.

Edited September 30, 2006 by Guest

[Guest]

Where was I? Oh yes - It's the top down model which requires level 6 on a profile to equate to a level 3 at KS1 SAT - lets work it back. Take off 2/3rds of a level - they would be at 2C at the end of year one and then 1B at the end of reception. So level 6 equates to a National Curriculum score of 1B - err I think not and anyone who claims this needs to be challenged as forcibly as you dare as its nonsense.

 

Now as to the question as the why you might do this analysis?

 

1. Schools are now required to 'micro-analyse' all their data on achievement. Why? So as to better target help, to identify groups or individuals who might be under-achieving. Explain to me why this is a bad thing? Yes I know we are only taking some parts of the Profile to do this comparison, but if it helps to highlight a failing child or group of children how is this bad? Then you can look at the whole individual as say ' we know why this child is not achieving - they have special needs or there are known factors to explain this'. Or it might actually highlight an indvidual who is underachieving and not been noticed. How is this wrong?

 

2. I actually did this analysis to see if the scores we gave on the first lot of Profiles were accurate. I reckoned that if we had 'overscored' children then they would fail to make the minimum 2/3rds of a level per year. What I actually found was that our judgements were pretty accurate.

 

3. Is using Profile Scores as 'predictors' of achievement at KS1 SAT an evil and bad thing to do? Well this is how I see it. This year's cohort will be only the fourth to get assessed against the profile statements. By now we should be making reasonably accurate judgements of children's abilities. Why not use these to predict a likely achievement at the end of year one and year two. Yes it's limited but are we actually going to see SAT's scrapped in the next five years? I would love it to be so but I can't see it outside of a revolution...Will the National Curriculum be turfed out ? I've given up hoping for that.

The fact that these predictions are being made should not affect in any way the judgements which are being made throughout the year. Do your teachers at the end of each year discuss their children and whether there are any concerns? Well these 'predictors' should be seen as just another tool in that process.

 

4. What if children do not reach their 'predicted' scores? Well don't you care if children are underachieving? I dislike the current climate of reducing human beings to numbers as much as anyone but this type of analysis does help highlight underachievement and also by the way highlight success as well. It is a particular joke in our authority since we only have a maximum of 30 children in each cohort so each child is worth 3.5%!! I love expressing our results as percentages because it is ludicrous! The best bit is when others are really impressed by that. What you have to do is to use the results wisely.

If a concern is highlighted then look at the individual children closely as a whole human being. Use the numbers wisely to identify individuals.

In the perfect school no doubt every teacher knows everything about every child but otherwise don't afraid to use micro-analysis to highlight concerns

 

5. Looking closely at the profile scores can also help to identify possible gaps and weaknesses in your Foundation Stage provision. Training can then be targetted at addressing those areas of weakness. How is this a bad thing? I now know which groups of children are likely to struggle throughout the FOundation Stage. This has meant that I can target support to children who are in those categories in nursery. Does it mean any given individual is going to struggle? No of course not. However by targetting the 'at risk' group for early intervention we can quickly see who is likely to need help and provide it without 'waiting to see' if they make progress when they are a bit older. Our anaysis tells us they are not likely to progress as well as other children.

 

 

Sorry to go on at length about this. By the way this sort of analysis should only be expected of FS co-ordinators and the like not standard classroom teachers. (Just say NO!)

[AnonyMouse_79]

Yes, I thought that too, Moose.

 

Please continue this Androyd. I havent been involved in any of this as I have been supply teaching for the last 2 years but am about to return to the classroom with a January reception intake and can imagine I might need to know more! I have already been asked what profile score on entry would indicate that children are working below average. I dont think that is right either?

[Guest]

Sorry Moose we cross posted! yeah well if you look at what some of the level 9 statements actually require it may well be but that is a whole other can of worms - It seems that no-one really look closely at how the ELG's fitted into the National Curriculum because it was such a rush to get it all out and there was actually massive arguments on the working parties (according to my sources) even on the simplest of stepping stones! The profile statements were produced with equal haste. Just like is happening to the new framework. We recently did a levelling exercise with writing where we looked at pieces of writing across the school. As FS practitioners unfamiliar with the NC statements we looked at them carefully and scored work accordingly - the KS1 practitioners scored the same pieces of work much lower. Why? 'Because I don't care what the statement says, that is a 1C piece of work.' !!!

The whole process is fraught with inaccuracy and error and as practitioners we can either say we are having nothing to do with any of it or make the best stab at a bad job and take value where we find it as well as pleasing management inspectors etc etc.

 

On entry to reception or on entry to year one?

 

Sorry that last comment was addressed to Susan

[AnonyMouse_79]

On entry to reception! Worrying, eh? and on the day in question I had a migraine and really couldnt think out a logical argument, over the phone, as to why this was inappropriate.

[Guest]

Where does the 6 equates to a level 3 come from? Sorry to be dense! My understanding is that a child who achieves a 6 on the FSP might be reasonably expected to achieve a 2b in the KS1 SATs.

 

I wonder if a lot of the mixed messages come from the fact that the Curriculum Guidance refers to 'expected' achievement. Doesn't this, perhaps, make people see the ELGs as a tick list of 'things to be covered' rather than as things that need rigorously assessing? If the points on the profile are seen as a tick list of things that the children have had experience of (and I'm by no means suggesting that everyone does this) then this would result in the 8s and 9s virtually across the whole class that I've seen in moderation meetings. This is what really bothers me as it suggests, I feel, that sometimes Foundation stage assessment is not taken seriously or understood: the 'ooh they've got to have done everything' approach. There is a big difference between having had experience of everything and having full mastery of everything. When I was moderated last year I started banging on about profile scores and people who score very highly and she told me stories about schools she had been into who had their children scored off as 9s when they were clearly nowhere near that level.

 

I agree with androyd - is it really unreasonable to see a pattern between children who have done well with certain aspects of their development in Foundation and assume that they will continue to do well in these areas and, likewise, for those children who have struggled? Yes, as Foundation stage practioners we know that the WHOLE child is important and most of us plan for this but currently those things are not valued by government as children move on. I don't subscribe to that theory and I never did when I taught in Y2 but I played the game (working on the skills that I knew children needed to do well in the SATs) whilst still providing a fun curriculum and recognising and celebrating those children whose talents led them to shine in different curriculum areas.

 

(Not sure about the 'standard classroom teacher' bit! )

 

That all sounds very pompous and I'm sorry but I don't know how else to word it.

Edited September 30, 2006 by Guest

[Guest]

OK well its really very simple. The only assessment data from foundation stage children that can be required is the Profile Statements which are collected OVER the time your children are in the FOundation Stage. This information is only ready in June. No-one can possibly predict an average on entry score because children take such diverse routes into class. Last January I had a boy who had never been apart from his mummy and never been to a playgroup. His mother had done very little with him other than love him to bits. He was a very loving boy who had very little knowledge of anything. However he was curious and made great progress from a low start and continues to do so in Year One. I also had a child who had attended our centre since they were 3 months old!

 

No-one can make any demand on you to provide any on entry data. The answer is; 'we begin to assess children as soon as they enter the Foundation Stage but we do not collate this information until June.' So there is no average score.

[AnonyMouse_73]

Wow this is a really meaty discussion and its a really good illustartion of what the forum is all about.

 

I remember stating although somwhat tongue in cheek when the profile first came out that as soon as the first cohort went through year 2 SATS, that data would be used to make future predictions, even though it wasnt in the design of the FSP. The trouble with this is that it is statistically flawed, you cannot make set predictions from one (or even 2 or 3 ) clumps of data, which take no account at all for the newness of the FSP, the huge variation in making judgments, year on year differences, chnages to the way KS1 are assessed, etc.

 

What saddens me is that these predictions are not in my very cynical world view, relaly there to pick up children who may be failing or rather underachieving, (Im not completely convicne you need numercial scores to see this), but are there to beat teacghers with a big stick..if your children dont meet these flawed predictions, , then YOU are not a good enough teacher. Then you have to provide chapter and verse as to why, when actualy sometimes they may have been poor predictions based on an one size fits all model which we know doesnt always work. (I would much base preidctions on our knowledge of the children!!). (yes I can see that if used as a ROUGH guide, fair enough, but it never is is it?)

 

I agree that analysing the profile tells us a lot about the children now, and yes it has highlighted areas that we need to develop within our curriculum, and we use this data regularly fro that purpose.

 

Interestingly enough, I think the SATs will evenutllay go.

 

Susan it worries me more that now we have to make FSP predictions based on entry to nursery, and this really doesnt take nto any account the gear changes that go in the lives of children at differnt times in their early years.

[Guest]

Sorry Moose its me thats getting carried away, but even the assumption of level 6 = 2b at KS1 so at end of year 1 level 6 = 1A so at end of reception level 6=1C err no wrong again.

 

THat would mean level 6 equates to working within the National Curriculum rather than within the Early Learning Goals.

 

The powers that be can't have it both ways. Having clearly said that the average child in the finishing the FS should be level 6/7 they are then stuck with them needing to be at level 1C. Therefore level 6 = level 1C = 2b at KS1 SATs. Actually I reckon level 7/8 in reality equates to a 1C on entry to Year One and a 9 equates to 1B. Therefore a 6 should really mean W with a expectation of achieving 1B end of year one and therefore 2C at KS1. That seems to me to be a more realistic expectation.