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

Is was compulsory for a period in the late 90s. Possibly went out when the stepping stones were binned and the EYFS came in. Your LA must have done it. Lots of schools continued with some sort of assessment, many started assessing against the profile. Which was probably less useful than what they had in place already.

It just happena naturally. Children come on massively in Y1. I know children who didn't get there early learning goals in writing and maths cope l with Y1 expectations. Eventually everyone just learns to cope. It is those who have, do and will struggle academically who will suffer as the baseline is placed out of their reach.

Statutory baseline was replaced by the FSP in 2003

I meant baseline requiements across the years. The expectations have been upped.

I don't think a sensitively done baseline is an issue. It's not like you need to pressure children to get the highest possible scores. Quite the opposite I'd imagine if targets are being set from it.

I was replying to 10twinkle10

I think it's a huge ask for a child who didn't achieve ELGs to meet new Y1 expectations a year later.

Depends by how much they miss their ELGs by.

Everyone just gets on. Children who didn't meet their reading ELG pass phonics screen a year later. Children who can barely write their name writing newspaper articles a year later. Maybe it's to do with the teacher, maybe it's development, maybe that is just life. Biggest factor n education. Learner's capacity to learn.

So a child who knows just one sound in reception will pass their PSC?
Or a child who doesn't recognise number 1 will be able to read, write and order numbers to 100 a year later?

Depends by how much they miss their learning goals. Do I need to say it a hundred times. Massive difference from just missing your ELGs to not being able to recognise one letter and one sound. Some children just miss out.

The difference between oncology and early years teaching is that oncology is based on a thorough knowledge of many, many years of sound scientific research, a fundamentally accurate understanding of physiology and biochemistry, and the scientific open-mindedness that allows practice to change when new discoveries come along. Oncologists these days do not ignore evidence that goes against their beliefs. They also do not claim that their treatments are "correct", only that they are based on the best knowledge we have so far.

The knowledge of child development on which early years is based is far, far more provisional and contested, yet all too many "experts" claim that "research has proven" that their preferred approach is the "correct" one.

For example until fairly recently it was claimed that children learned in Piagetian stages; now we know that stages is the wrong concept, because there is so much overlap that development is much smoother, and that children can be well advanced in one area, less so in another, and that they go backward and forwards. Yet many early practitioners were just as confident of the absolute correctness of the Piagetian stage idea then, as they are of the absolute correctness of play-based-learning-only now.

Project Follow-through, as described in the article I cited in my previous post, is a good example of how sound research has been ignored if it doesn't support the advocates of natural, play-based learning.

Then I'll repeat something I said earlier ... if as it seems from discussion some reception teachers are happy to award the reading ELG to children who are still working at phase 2 of ?etters and Sounds then there is a problem. They haven't missed the ELG but have barely started with phonics ....

All my current year one class 'met' their reading and writing ELG apart from 2 SEN children. However, this is the weakest cohort of children I've ever had and there is no way on this earth that I will get these children to 'meeting national standard' within the next few weeks.

Most of the children came up on stage 1+ or 2 on the Floppy's Phonics reading scheme. They had 'covered' phase 3 but not one child was secure and I have my year one autumn term assessments to prove this.

However, our EYFS team are praised on their amazing results and extremely high number of children having a GLD (I couldn't even tell you how ridiculously high this figure is as it may out me).

I'm not feeling happy that it's half term, I'm feeling scared that its a week less that the children have to make progress in!

That seems to be an all too common story Frizzy

How on earth do you manage to give the reading elg to children only on phase 2? Doesn't the LA moderation sort that out?

Some year 1 teachers are being royally screwed over if that's the case.

FrizzyPig that's shocking. We are under pressure to have as many as possible on ELGs for writing and are doing a lot of writing in class and I have some borderline who just can't write sentences independently, a few down to lack of confidence - hate pushing them so much. HT is clearly under pressure from higher up.

Jesus... What? how do people get away with that? Some people in my class will get stage 3 phonics and still not get their ELGs. Everyone is being screwed over in that case and I'm a mug. But I am not going to give my name to a falsehood. Developmental research has been a huge area for years... It isn't all Piaget and no one taught absolute!y in his stages. Neo-piagetian work is very good and for as long as we can remember a lot of educational work is based upon Vygotsky anyway. Of course Piaget links to current spectrum theories and EYFS. Unless you don't know where phonics came from. Everything is based on ever changing research.

The ELG says

Children read and understand simple sentences. They use phonics knowledge to decode regular words and read them aloud accurately. They also read some common irregular words. They demonstrate understanding when talking with others about what they have read.

The teachers I was debating (arguing) with said they believed that a child reading a sentence such as "The cat is big." Or "Mum was sad." Or "He has a dog." are fulfilling those criteria ...

Those type of results will eventually trigger an inspection. That should have read spectrum theories and TOM. phonics came from a neo-piagetian. In fact one of his students.

Why would they trigger an Ofsted? They make EY look really good and the Y1 teacher is seen as failing to make expected progress ...and like Frizzy they see holidays as wasted teaching time because they are desperately trying to get these children to the expected standard.

Lack of progress overtime which will eventually show up. Why so brilliant in EYFS and then... Nothing. Maybe a moderation visit would do them good.

I know some of these teachers have been moderated and that some have even been visited by Ofsted.

Lack of progress over time

I will be in Year 2 as KS1 Leader next year so guess who will get the blame next year for their lack of progress??

Funnily enough, our FS leader came and took our Reception baseline assessments for last years children out of our assessment folders this week and replaced them with 'neater' ones!

She's lowered their baselines so that the already apparently genius children made even more phenomenal progress in their year of Reception!