Data question relating to GLD and KS1 results.

[pickledsiblings]

If a school has 80% of their EYFS cohort with a good level of development (GLD) at the end of YR and the National picture is closer to 50%, would you expect the KS1 sats results to be significantly higher than National the following year?

Do you mean the year that cohort reach Y2?

Actually it would be 2 years later, wouldn't it?

Yes Looks, I do.

Cross post!

No, I wouldn't necessarily expect it but Ofsted/School Governors probably would!

The reason I would say not, is because children are assessed under different circumstances when in EYFS.

One year, my profile results were outstanding but I had to warn the rest of the SLT that they would not achieve similarly good results at KS1 because they simply were not ready to learn in that way, IYSWIM?

Thanks Looks.

Do you think there is anything wrong with asking the question of the Head? I'm a governor by the way.

I would probably say that you understand these things don't necessarily follow, but what chance does she think the cohort will have of a raised profile in Y2.

Thanks for the steer Looks, that's a good direction to take.

There's no correlation between EYFS profile data and the old NC results ... We are being told there will be a closer fit with the new (watch this space) but research shows a better relationship between EYFS and GCSE apparently

mrz That's interesting about EYFS/GCSE correlation. I can certainly see why that would be the case.

I've always fought for no comparison to be made but in every school I've taught in, it has been.

My EYFS scores were called into question on the cohort mentioned previously, on that very basis, by SLT, Governors, County and Ofsted . None of them were EYFS specialists and I was even moderated the year they were questioning. They said the KS1 scores should have been higher, based on the EYFS scores. So whilst no comparison should be made, it is.

They decided it was just a rogue year. I maintain they were an exceptionally bright but very young class.

I had to fight every year when I was setting targets with the governors, School Improvement Partner, etc. to not use the EYFS data to set individuals' Year 2 targets. Even the LA spreadsheet expected us to add that information as part of the data trail.

The QCA and NAHT sent out instructions that the profile shouldn't be used that way but it was largely ignored by LEAs. I certainly had many "discussions" with LEA advisors who insisted they could based on a commercial product.

Thanks for the additional insights mrz and AsBright.

I am a governor at an 'outstanding' school. It is small enough that the HT has a handle on each individual DC. The staff are incredibly dedicated and interventions are well employed for weaker students. Parents are very engaged on the whole and there is very little deprivation yet the phonics results are always around the National figure with 4/5 students failing each year. Would it be meaningless then to set a target of say 85% to pass the phonics test based on high GLD figures?

Based on a discussion on TES early years ( a number of teachers said they would be happy to award expected level for reading to children still working on phase 2 sounds) I'd be very wary of setting targets based on profile results

I would be too, I'm afraid.

no I would not, both sets of data are meaningless.

I would want to look at phonic assessments as a better guide

I don't get how outstanding schools are actually supposed to improve their results. What is the measure of whether or not a student is actually reaching their potential?

I ask because I worked with my own DS when I realised that left to their own devices the school would be 'happy' with him achieving a 2b in writing in Y1. We did a little bit of work at home and he ended the year on a 2a. He would have ended on a 3 had I realised sooner that he wasn't headed for it!

Standard progress across a year was measured as two sub levels if using the old NC levels (which most of us have to, in order to track progress). Some will make more, some less. Teachers just have to use their best judgement.

Do you really mean a 2B in Year 1?
I will assume you mean Year 2 but I'm a little confused. Are you coming at this as a concerned governor or parent?

You are also jumping from raising the results of the Phonics Test to talking about writing in (presumably) Year 2?

Either way, with some additional 1:1 tuition, I expect most children would achieve more. The targets are set with a realistic view of how that child would achieve without 1:1 as schools cannot support that. Being engaged in the school and there being little deprivation is no sign that a parent will help a child at home, trust me. Nor do either of those factors result in higher achievements in the Phonics Test.

Sorry if I've not answered you, I'm a bit confused as to what it is you are really wanting out of the school!

LooksLike Thanks for the reply.

Sorry for the confusing question. Even I'm not sure what I'm asking. Yes, I do mean 2B at the end of Y2.

I'm frustrated as both a parent and a governor that a school as good as the one I'm familiar doesn't seem to be capable of getting the most from my DC.

My other DC did better at the same stage after a few years head start in the Independent sector.

I don't know what it is that they are NOT doing iykwim?

pickled, are you asking what the school could be doing to bring your child - and other children - up to their full potential?

I agree, if just a bit of 1:1 home practice can bring a child up a level or two, one wonders what's missing in the classroom.

With all the 'differentiation' these days, surely school instruction should be sufficient for each child to achieve their potential.

But there isn't sufficient funding for the kind of support you are talking about! 1:1 is just not sustainable in a class of 30. Or even 20 in some instances.

There has been funding available for 1:1 tuition in previous years but it has to be applied for and schools tend to use it for KS2, rightly or wrongly. In my experience, it doesn't cover the full amount of tuition needed.

My other DC did better at the same stage after a few years head start in the independent sector

1. Different child. You really should not compare the two.

1. Your other DC had a 'head start' in the independent sector which is better funded, resourced and has a better ratio of adults to children.

I can understand why you are frustrated. You think your child should be writing at a certain level and with some (though you don't say how much) additional support, you raised it one sub level. You say that you could have got him to a 3. I've not seen his writing so I can't comment on that, but it is hard to get a 3 (in my class).

Have you spoken to the teacher? Have you raised your concerns? Remember that the child you work with 1:1 at home is likely to be different to the child in a larger class with one teacher.

Perhaps as a governor, you ought to be asking the school how the governing body can help to provide additional support?

There are a lot of schools that don't teach phonics very well, often because of a lack of training for the staff, lack of materials and resources, and sometimes because of resistance to the concept. What programme is the school using? Do you have decodable books? Are teachers still telling children to look at pictures and first letters to guess the words, as an "alternative" to sounding out from left to right all through the word?

You said four fifths of students fail the phonics test each year. did you mean 4/5 pass? If not, there is something very seriously wrong. If yes, good phonics teaching can get 95% of children passing, and the benefits of that are likely to be passed on to their writing.

Some schools also underestimate the need for practice, both with phonics and with writing. Too many games, with lots of children sitting on the carpet waiting for their turn, can mean most children are learning very little; better they should be sitting at a table with pencil and paper and actively practising.

The discussion board on Debbie Hepplewhite's Phonics International site has a lot of information on good practice, including for getting children writing.

Kesstrel, I mean 4 or 5 kids out of 22 or so fail. Pass rate is usually just below 80%. As far as I know, in the 5 years I've been a governor, we've had 1 child with APD but the others that have failed have not had any specific reading issues iykwim.

LooksLike I know what you are saying about not comparing your DC etc. but that's not it. I know what my DC are capable of in the way that any engaged parent does. All the ingredients where there: excellent motor skills/pencil grip, natural speller, extensive vocabulary, great phonic knowledge, good exposure to reading material etc. The difference as far as I can see is in expectation - his teachers expected less of him than I did.

I'm not saying that their expectations are low, they're not!