EYFS levels - at end of Reception??

[PiedWagtail]

Hmm. In our school the children have been working towards the EYFS levels. I asked for a printout of ds's (he's in Reception). His levels go from 5, are mainly 6s and 7s, with one 8. Am not very happy with this...

When dd was in Year R she had all 9s at the end of the year!!

Do the levels matter?? Do they 'predict' how well dc will do further up the school? or are they a meaningless load of form-filling and paperwork for teachers??

The EYFS is a summative assessment for teachers to complete at the end of reception. The expected score is around a 6, so your son is around or above average across the board.

These levels are not a prognosis or indicator of how children will do throughout their schooling.

So, you're not very happy with your son?

so the expectation is that they will get an average of at least 6 points on each scale. This sets them up to be a level 1b at end of year 1 and 2b at end of year 2 (on average rate of progress). So your ds is working at expected levels. The thing you need to check is
a) are there things he can do that are not ticked? (this suggests that teachers may not be looking at what he can do as much as they could.
b) are the thinge that he is marked as being able to do similar to what he could do when he came into reception. This suggests that something may be hampering his progress OR (more likely) that he is developing other skills that are not marked

I wouldn't say it was meaningless but i'm of the opinion that the measurement/scales are heavily weighted in favour of more demonstrative children. The quieter child or the child who tends to only wants to do a limited number of activities, make it much harder for the teacher to gather evidence required and thus limits the scores.

Just my own opinion though.

Thanks all - at the start of Reception we were told that level 9 was what all children were aiming for the end of Year R though...

ds is one of the quieter children. His EYFS sheet doesn't say the level he started out on

It was my understanding that scale point 9 was for children who were working a considerable way beyond the Early learning goals. Scale point nine is an admirable although for many unattainable aim, when the avarge child is only mean to achieve 6 of the points.

I would be interested to know how many thay achieved this for?

*average child is only meant to achieve 6 of the points.

Thanks Wiggly, that's v helpful. I have no idea what children achieved what - the graphs weren't given out with reports; I asked for ds's. Feel better to know that everyone else probably hasn't got 9s and he has 6s and 7s though!!

ds was about same scores as yours at end of year R, and has just finished year 2 with all level 3s. He is a quieter one too but started to shine early in year 1.

Not wanting to generalise, but boys can be slower starters than girls!

Our school doesn't routinely give out the scores as they find they cause more stress for parents than they help as many parents don't understand them. I asked and was given the levels as having spent 12 years as a governor I understand them and what they mean. To be given a 9 the child needs to be working significantly above the typical level for a reception child. She said that it's rare for her to level a child at a 9. As long as he is achieving at around 6 or above then he's doing fine.

Oh well, my dd must be a genius then

Thanks Fuzzymum - that's helpful too :)

I also understand that 9's are rare. If you find the chart that was on someone's thread last week, it shows that 8 is the top of what they are taught in Reception, and 9 is beyond.

6s and 7s are fine. 5 is just below expectations. Frankly, I'd be more cynical about the scoring of all 9s for your DD.

Well, she was in Reception 3 years ago... but she is also working a couple of years ahead of her age now, and is classed as 'outstanding' for most subjects in her school report.

So to butt in, DD report is a cut paste job of the EY (which is frequently linked on MN)
Her report has no numbers but is clearly each of the sections.
Most say she is working towards but four say she has achieved the (insert EY sub topic).
Does this 'achieved' mean a 9?

To my understanding achieved is all 8 points and exceeding is point 9

PiedWagtail Good to know that her progression seems to match her eyfs score!

Wiggly - have just searched on here for the EYFS discussion last week - I had no idea about level 9s in Reception meaning level 3s in Yr 2 SATS, etc. How complicated it all is!!!

I don't think being quiet disadvantages them. Dd1 was very quiet in reception and got all 9s except one 8, and dd2 who was slightlier louder (how things change!) back then got all 9s.

Ds's report (reception this year) has not used numbers, however due to the cut and paste like shattereddreams's dd it can easily be worked out. What they have done is at the top of each section is put a phrase which clearly links to the score. The phases are "X is progressing well through the levels" (about 6-7 points) "Almost fully achieved" (8 points) "Fully achieved" (9 points). I has quite a lot of entertainment working this out.

I don't think "officially" it should but many schools do target their children that way. I was in assembly last week and watched the headmistress announce that she expected all the children who got level 3 in year 2 be level 5 in year 6. Not too much pressure then!

Jan Dubiel, who was involved in the EYFS Profile when it was written, categorically stated in a training I attended recently that there is absolutely no correlation between end of reception scores and levels in key stage one and beyond.
As stated up thread a level 6 is average and will be the equivalent of the new "expected" level for the new EYFS.

That's what I understood to be the case chicketick.

Children will be assessed under NC levels in Y1 and go from there.

I always thought the reception scores were a waste of time. They are supposed to be learning through play. I've just looked through DS2's learning journal, and he seems to have spent at least half of the year dressed as a furry animal. Which is the whole point IMO.

Chigertick - someone on another thread made that point; can't remember how they supported it.