What do teachers think about the new early years baseline tests?

[christinarossetti]

What effect do you think their administration have on the settling children into reception/classroom routines?

Do they look to be in any way a useful and robust mechanism to inform the measure of progress?

And, in particular, do they represent a move away from the broad, play-based EYFS and towards a narrower curriculum, which won't give due emphasis to personal, social and emotional development?

Is there anything that will benefit the children, their families or teachers?

My instinct is to go with the 'too young to test' school of thought, although schools continually assess and measure, so maybe it's the how it's done that's the problem?

TIA

When the Foundation Stage was first introduced so was statutory baseline assessment of all children within the first six weeks in school.

It worked because it allowed teachers to assess new pupils in order to best plan and meet their needs. Many schools continued to use baseline after the profile was introduced for this reason.
IMVHO it makes sense to assess what children already know when they start rather than wait until they are moving on (yes I know teacher assessment is ongoing but the profile is actually intended as a summary of what they know at the end of the EYFS).

It seems that the majority of schools have opted for the very child friendly Early Excellence Baseline which doesn't involve sitting children down and testing them but rather by interacting and observing children and includes the Ferre Laevers scale measure if wellbeing.
I'm not a fan of the computerised tests which some schools have opted for.

Thanks mrz that's very helpful.

I read the the information in the 'Scrap Baseline' e-petition started by Lambeth teachers and was a bit sceptical about some of the claims.

I remember similar arguments about 'stigmatising children who perform poorly' and 'invalid methods' being used about the phonics screening which I personally think was a good move.

Will it change the EY curriculum at all?

I don't think baseline will change EYFS but there is pressure because of the new National Curriculum.

Is this because of the increased expectations at an earlier age that the new National Curriculum has brought in?

I'm told that LEA advisors are pushing changes.

Positive changes, or a narrower curriculum?

Not narrower necessarily, but higher expectations in maths and literacy and more formal, with less play. I've heard lots of people say that the new EYFS expectations and now the increased expectations in year 1 have led to less CI. Particularly I think in those schools where some of the new objectives from year 1 and have been pushed down into expectations for reception.

Sorry, what's CI?

I can't work out whether any of this is evidence-based or a central government whim/impetus to force school's data to 'under perform' so that they can push through their academy/free school agenda.

Unfortunately, I suspect the latter, but it's hard to see the wood for the trees within all the politics and ideology surrounding discussions about education sometimes.

The early years movement is in danger of turning into a cult, full of people romanticising themselves as protectors of childhood freedom and innocence. Sure, reception children should not be sitting at desks all day. But that doesn’t make the people who claim they’ll be damaged if they don’t spend all day playing correct. I’ve read some nursery teachers here actually saying that it was wrong and damaging to get nursery children to sit down with a pencil at a table for as little as 15 minutes to do some work on numbers and letters, for example. Don’t these teachers realise that nursery children spend, at most, no more than 12% of their waking hours during the course of a year in school? Most of them get plenty of other chances to play and explore, outside of school. And even those who don’t are likely to be better off spending a proportion of the time being taught – see this article: www.city-journal.org/2008/18_4_pre-k.html

As for the slogan that “young children learn best through free play”, there is just no evidence to support that. Yes, young children do learn many things through free play, and it’s important, but any parent knows they also learn from copying adults and older children, and from explicit instruction and the chance to practice skills. Not only that, but in traditional cultures (and in our own until recently), children aged 3 and over play in MIXED age groups, where they can learn from the older children. Coralling a bunch of 4 year olds together to play on their own is not the same, and will not have the same effect.

I don't think it will narrow the early years curriculum in any way but there is pressure to have children ready to start "school" because of the raised expectations in KS1

Sorry, that was child initiated.

Mrz, is there any truth in the idea that reception children are now expected to read numbers and count to 100 by the end of the year? At least 3 people have now said this to me, but google isn't bringing up anything official. Obviously plenty of schools have always extended beyond 10/20 if the children were ready, but setting it as expected seems a high target.

I've never encountered that expectation ...it's the expectation in Y1

No not the expectation. There is evidence that children of that age learn best in the applying of their knowledge in free play and in developing it this way: EPPE. People get that it is provisioned free play, with challenges, themes etc? Anyway Exba is good... developmental assessment.

I think for me the concern regarding the baseline is the impact that it has upon the school as a whole and how valid the baseline score actually is when predicting a child's results in yr6. As we all know children do not progress in straight lines and many things impact on how a child progresses academically from the age of 4 to 11.

Do you mean EExBA or another assessment?

I think it's often forgotten that EYFS requires a balance between adult and child led learning ... there is a time for teaching and a time for building understanding through play.
We teach our children how to feed themselves, how to wash and brush their teeth, how to dress themselves and how to use a knife and fork and no one rolls their eyes and suggests that we are robbing them of their childhood.
Children should be children but that doesn't mean adults shouldn't support their learning.

We had compulsory baseline assessment for four years (6 years in some areas) so it's not new the difference is we don't know how well it will match outcomes in Y6 until 2022/3 so I guess only time will tell.

Yeah that...! People don't really seem to get early years. But then I don't get oncology...but difference is I know that and accept oncologists know their jobs.

That's what I thought. I assume it's come from some schools pushing objectives down a year in order to improve results. One day the idea of securing the basics and building on strong foundations being the route to improvement might catch on.

Didn't EPPE suggest an equal balance of adult directed, adult initiated and child initiated free play, or am I misremembering. That's not to say adult directed should involve 3 year olds sitting down with pencil and paper and doing work on letters and numbers.

Yes... and that is the directive. 40:60 adult led: child initiated in pre-school/beginning of reception. 50/50 for mpst of reception and towards thr end 60:40 in favour of adult led for more able.

EPPE found that children made more progress in settings that combined education and care, where staff were highly qualified and that good early years staff provided direct teaching, instructional learning environments and opportunities for sustained shared thinking.

I think some settings have lost sight of this and are afraid to "teach" or "interact"

MrZ my understanding is that all the baselines have to produce a numerical score so whilst the assessment practices my differ the end result is still the same. Its like the assessment without levels being introduced with no firm consistent approach. We have no idea what the numerical score will represent and how it will impact schools/teachers/children.

As an EYFS teacher for a very long time I have always baselined/assessed/observed the children on entry to Nursery and Reception and many points in between. I accept that we have all done this differently and a more consistent approach is always better. I am not sure however, that introducing six baseline choices with varying outcomes will achieve this. However, like all things in education this will pass and something else will be introduced to keep teachers busy!!

So you would be around in 1997/99 when statutory baseline was first introduced and every school was free to devise their own method? Of course it wasn't officially linked to Y6 outcomes but many LEAs used the data to predict and set targets.

Iy basically comes down to how well the EYFS are development experts. If they are... no problem. If not... point is missed no matter hoe much free play they get. It isa specialist job. As is the job of the Y1 teacher who understands this.

No not that long only 13 years in eyes (although sometimes it feels longer!) as far as I'm aware our LA never did that. It's only been in the last few years it's given guidance on tracking children from eyfs to ks1 although the schools I worked in always did this informally.

Tbh looking at the new curriculum my concern is for year one children/teachers as the expectations have been raised significantly.

I taught reception forever and was there when statutory baseline was introduced and cheered when the Foundation Stage arrived and reception finally had a home... then the profile and EYFS. I'm now in Y1 and agree there is a huge leap from the end of reception to the new expectations for Y1.