Do all schools mark their reception reports in the same way? - feeling a bit deflated!(310 Posts)
I got DDs reception report today and feel a little bit deflated. She got all expected except one which was emergent. I wouldn't expect her to get exceeding in everything but one or two would have been lovely especially in communication and understanding which I think have always been really strong points with her (and in fact her teachers said at open evening that she was working at a year 1 level in these).
I'm a bit more bemused because a friend with a DD at a different school says her child got every category as exceeds. I know the DD well and would have said that her and my DD are fairly equal development wise so was wondering how much consistency there is across the schools in terms of deciding on grades?
My head says I am being silly and that I should be pleased that she is where she should be...but my heart wishes there had been just one exceeds!
What I am saying is that when the profile was originally conceived the expectation was that most children should achieve 8 in PSED & CLLD (you could call these prime areas if you use current profile "jargon") a score of 9 was exceeding expectations and indicated a child working within National Curriculum levels (not the same as being secure at NC levels) and that a score of 78 became "a good level of development"
Are you saying that children with a score of 78 points (6 x 13 ELGs, not 12 as I thought earlier) were emerging and that only children with a point score of 104+ (8x13) were at the expected level then?
It is late - perhaps it will all make more sense in the morning!
The expected level fir the end of reception was all ELGS (points 4-8 on the profile - which can't be achieved until points 1-3 are achieved) so a score of 8 tiredbutnotweary.
"Children were considered to have achieved a good level of development if they achieved a total of six or more points out of a possible total of nine points in the personal, social and emotional development (PSED) and communication, language and literacy (CLL) early learning goals and 78 points or more in total." with about 60% of children achieving this
Mrz, I thought expected was at least 6 points, made up of the first 3 ELGs and then at least 3 others, therefore emerging was points 1 - 5, expected points 6 to 8 and exceeding was point 9. A good level of development was achieved by a minimum of 72 points, either by all 12 goals at point 6 (so 6 points couldn't be emerging), although more normally some points may be less than a 6 and others higher as long as the 72 points were achieved??? Of course many children achieved more than the minimum GLD of 72 points, but I thought only those achieving less than 72 points were the equivalent of emerging?
And as you yourself have observed the level required to achieve expected for at least some (most?) of the current ELGs is point 9 (exceeding) of last years profile.
Which leads to the anomaly that many children who have achieved expected (let alone exceeding) through the EYFS playbased curriculum this year are already working within NC level 1 - in fact for numbers and shapes (the two maths ELGs) they are working beyond it and in L2 for at least some of the descriptors). Well at least until the new NC curriculum comes in and there are no more levels, or rather sublevels as I think there will still be end of year statutory expectations!?!
Please correct me if I've got any of it wrong - I'm still learning
DD goes to a school where there is very little parental input in their child's education ie no listening to their kids read, homework not done etc.
However most children made it to a 6/7 by the end of reception.
DD's learning journal came home with all her assessments/observations done on the old system right up to 2 weeks ago.
Somehow it was believed that a score of 6 was the expected level
DD started the school year on 9s (ended nursery actually in all but numeracy which was an 8 - talking the academic stuff).
Still got expected though...(at the end of reception).
The bit that always threw me on the old EYFS was to be a 6 they had to cover 1-3 and 1 other I think...
Seems a bit pointless to me (maybe why it's gone!) a 6 should be 1-6.
Mrz - how are they assessing exceeding in your school?
that makes sense Mrz with the scores my daughter got
In the old EYFS profile 1-7 were the equivalent to emerging (ie hadn't reached all the ELGs)
8 was expected
9 was exceeding (a child displaying aspects of NC levels - varied according to actual curriculum area)
I have never asked for DD's NC levels but the school (teacher) has told me them.
I guess a lot of school won't assess on NC levels for reception, especially as its so hard to get exceeding now.
I was told old EYFS levels 1-6 now equal emerging (ie big difference)
7-9 expected (and up to NC 1A)
NC level 2C+ is exceeding.
Tiredbutnotweary - they were very happy to show me the EYFS levels and how they achieved them when I asked if I could see them and then they briefly showed me the NC levels that she is working at as part of the 'this is all then passed up to Yr1' pack. I didn't get to look at it too closely and I actually can't remember them which is a bit rubbish isn't it. They were 1bs and 1as though for Reading/Writing/Maths I think. All seem quite logical given she is one of the oldest in the year and was doing well when she started school so I felt they were fair and accurate not OTT if that makes sense.
I think they have to show you the EYFS levels if you ask to see them but the NC levels don't have to be supplied as I understand it in reception and will only be used if they have exceedings as for expecteds they wouldn't mark them on a NC level.
I find t hard to belive an exceeding could equal a 2c.
would expect an exceeding to be 1b, 1b or 1a
based on end of year 1 in dd1s class thats what most got.
i would expect expected to be on middle /top end of efys scoring was 6 average upto 9.
would expect emerging be lower end of efys .
or as preschool do it in months 30-50months or 40 -60months.
wouldimagnine there be an exceptional child might get 2c but that be rare.
really the words mean nothing f no levels to benchmark it against.
so f they httng nc levls dont know why they just dont state those levels.
Periwinkle - can I just check then, were your school happy to share NC levels? I was told I could have this information and have now been told the school doesn't have it
The problem with starting school just after you turn five is that schools end up with either half classes till Christmas/Easter (popular with parents but not with heads as it isn't cost-effective) or you have three classes-starting September, christmas and Easter and have two floating teachers for weeks.
well our school seem to be using NC1 of some level as an exceeding. The document the staff are using is very similar to the one tiredbutnotweary linked to.
to be honest I would expect exceeding at reception to be achieving 1bish rather than 2c but that is just my expectations personally. I mean if you go into a classroom and see a reception class doing maths or something then some will be achieving what is required and some will be doing more than that. end of. shouldn't matter if they are achieving 2 years ahead of expected or not, just that they are achieving more than you would expect in reception.
I am also quite happy now I know my daughter's levels having spoken to the teacher. They have a sheet with guidance on it about what children have to be able to do and they have marked it off and then moderated etc. If a child is working at a higher level then they have a separate sheet with the NC levels on and mark off what they can do and this all then gets passed up to the Yr1 teacher for next year.
Apparently there was a meeting with the LEA in Feb and schools in the borough were told exceeding is a 2C
Some actual evidence showing how one area is being guided to award emerging, expected and exceeding - with exceeding being awarded for reaching NC level 1c and 1b. This is almost a whole level of difference between those schools only awarding exceeding for reaching NC level 2c.
We only spoke about her writing really then went on to talk about DD in yr1.
She said that a child has to be a 2C (which her teacher did not know - which was why she was originally given exceeding).
DD's writing on a good day is a 2C but is not consistent and she only writes in 2 formats.
I think it's quite common for reception teachers to assess and then show work to the yr1 teacher to confirm but in DD's case it was shown to EYFS Head/HT and then down graded.
I'm intrigued as to how she explained it, Simpson, if you don't mind sharing?
It was not the HT but the EYFS Head that marked them down. All I know is that DD was originally given 5 exceedings and marked down to having one. DD's teacher told me this.
I had a meeting with the HT a few days later and whilst we did not go through the whole report, what the HT said to me made sense, so I was happier afterwards iyswim.
simpson just reading through this thread (having just received my DC's report which was all 'expected') and wondered how you knew the Head had marked down some of the gradings? I was surprised to get expected all the way through, particularly on listening and attention when she is the most attentive person in the class. I have had a few issues with the HT so wondered if this may have been altered in some way before being sent home.
Would be grateful to know.
I must be a bit thick, I had no idea that 'working at the expected level' was anything more than a standard phrase. Personally I was more jealous about the lovely comment one of my friends got about her son being interested in nature (it was worded in a more personal way that I'm not going to quote because it will out me, or her!). Of course, we didn't talk about how the teacher thought they were performing because that way heartbreak lies. And considering how variable my own report cards were, despite me performing consistently, I'm not sure I'd put too much weight on it anyway.
Good thread, although so much information and complexity (I have no understanding of previous 6 - 9 system as DS1 is just finishing reception).
As someone 'learning the ropes' DS1 got 13 expecteds and 4 exceedings (listening and attention, moving and handling, self care and the world). I guess 'expecteds' could be interpreted as 'he's doing OK, not brilliant, no problems, but pretty much average'. That's certainly how I interpreted the word 'expected' (probably I should have asked the teacher exactly what this means). There was no explanation of what these definitions mean or relate to within the report itself.
In light of the absence of any explanation, I was heartened to read a lot of '1s' for effort (rest were '2s). I took effort to be indicative of motivation and general happiness and willingness to try his best - a trait I think is important.
But then he is October born, so I also think at this young age, he should be meeting all of these criteria, given he has a few months 'benefit' ahead of the average in the class.
Whatever though, I see the progress he is making and praise him for everything he puts into it. He is so proud of what he's doing, long may that continue!
Agh, so confusing!
Join the discussion
Please login first.