Do all schools mark their reception reports in the same way? - feeling a bit deflated!

[averywoomummy]

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!

[Periwinkle007]

that makes sense Mrz with the scores my daughter got

[simpson]

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?

[simpson]

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).

[mrz]

Somehow it was believed that a score of 6 was the expected level

[simpson]

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.

[tiredbutnotweary]

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

[mrz]

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

[tiredbutnotweary]

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!

[mrz]

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"