Reception report - meaning of exceeding

[Rox19]

Hello
My DC had reception report back and is 12 exceeding, 5 expected.
She was quite a long way ahead when she started school.
I'll be trying to get her in 7+ intake at a selective school.
How do I know what the expected progress for this profile does anyone know?

Eg does exceeded mean look at attaining a level 5 at year 6 level or do I have to ask for an NC level at parents eve? I just wondered if exceeded equates always to a NC level.

Thanks for any help & please don't flame me !

Agree with your points catkind

The problem is, that despite the guidance, I suspect a lot of schools are using it as a tick box exercise. That should be sorted out by moderation but I'm not convinced all moderation is equal. Does make a bit of a mockery of the results.

My daughter is coming to the end of year 1 and my daughter has done really well. I don't have her report yet, but she is doing far better than my son did at the same age.

I don't think that the fact that she has got exceeding for every in EYFS really has much bearing on her life at the moment. Her school is more interested in what she can do in the present. There has been movement between ablity tables. Getting exceeding across the board does not guarentee that a child will remain on top table if they don't continue to perform.

If the OP is planning to move her daughter into the private sector then reception reports really don't matter.

Hi yes well I can plan whatever I like re private system, but wondered if exceeding is an ok benchmark to relax a bit by and think she has a chance of passing.

Hard to know without private assessment and it is a bit grim to think she could take private school tests and fail (however much we try and play down the 'failure').

Guess this is just what all the other parents considering 7+ think as well.

Can't you take her to a tutor for an honest assessment? What matters is to know whether your child stands a reasonable chance of passing an entrance exam. An experience tutor will have an idea of how difficult entrance exams are for various schools. Private schools vary how selective they are. Some private schools have an entrance exam that only exclude those with really major learning difficulties.

I've got three children, only the last of which I'd say is precociously bright. I was quite surprised and relieved that she had quite a few expecteds along with her exceedings on her reception report. She's August born but very competitive and did everything early, reading, maths etc. I'd guess that if she didn't get all exceedings, nobody else in her class did. Can't remember exactly but I think aspects of shape recognition or social stuff was expected. So I do honestly think that there must be a subjectivity in these assessments.

In contrast, had my son been measured on the same scale I doubt he'd have exceeded on anything. He's just got into very selective N London privates (for secondary) from a RI primary so I don't know how good an indicator these levels are other than of precocity. I think it's like assuming that a child will be a good runner if they walk early.

Exceeding was originally meant to mean on the KS1 level spectrum so at least at a 1c. This of course applies mainly to 4 ELGs for literacy and maths as there isn't really a clear map for the other ELGs -even if there was what's the point?

It's beyond ridiculous that any school would use the Foundation Stage profile to map what a child should be targeted to achieve at KS1. If the DFE are putting in place baseline tests that should ability group and target a 4/5 year old for what they do at 7 and the teacher's union and parents are just sitting by and letting it happen

shame on England!

I'm so glad my youngest have grown out of this bs/malarkey. I could never be a primary teacher and take all this seriously. It would really upset me everyday.

the Dame Tickell review that led to the new profile highlighted serous concerns with the previous profile's excessively complicated scoring (that had no sounds mathematical basis - tickboxes summing into an overall count). The 17 ELG was a minimalization - a common sense change - of the original. I wish someone could explain to me the English obsession with classifying children into academic ability groups. With all the effort put into it they could just give them the IQ tests.

The DfE aren't putting baseline in to ability group childre. Because it's shown to be poor practice

The Tickle review was a joke! She squeezed 117 ELGs into 17. Exactly the same content so each new ELG much broader.

Making it even less use to the next teacher than the original profile was. At least on a scaled number system I have some idea of roughly where the children arr in terms of development, even if I don't know what they can and can't do. Emerging is the least helpful label ever invented and requires a whole other assessment system to run alongside it.

Since it's done in the first few weeks of reception it's really useful to the reception teacher when planning for individual pupils needs

Agree with that for the baseline. That's as it should be.

I was talking about Tickell's review and grouping 117 elgs into 17 bigger ones and the subsequent changing of the profile. I'll give her credit for correctly pulling out the 3 prime areas and to an extent giving them increased importance over the other areas in the younger age groups.

rafaisthekingofclay

There is an EYFS resource called development matters. It was meant to be helpful pretty helpful at understanding what is expected if you look at the 60 month age range.

It's a little scary to think educators took the old EYFS score seriously.

Development matters us essentially the curriculum. Hardly a resource

The review gave exceeding targets and I would not take exceeding as a best fit. I would see it as everything because these are real children, with real futures lives and happinesses. And if I give them an exceeding in literacy or maths I am basically saying they need to be whatever level 6 equivalent. Parents want the best for the children but please think k about that actually being a child. They have a lifetime to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts etc.

With all this box ticking do teachers actually have time to teach? Are children human beings or simply data on an excel spreadsheet? I think that some people have got so caught up with the score on the EYFS that they have forgotten the children.

In the world without levels why does it matter how a child does in reception. It's more serious if a child has special needs, but makes little difference if a child gets expected.

I did say it didn't give me an exact picture of what each child could do. But it's a lot more helpful than a sheet with 29 emergings and 1 expected for reading or number. At least the overview sheet gives me a vague idea of where I need to pitch my teaching before I get into the details of what each child needs.

It wasn't exactly the most helpful system either, but then neither were levels in other year groups.

Naive. Education is all assessment and box children. You have to juggle this actually being 100% present my for them everyday.

True Rafa it was a con ... "We've slimmed the unwieldy profile from 117 to 17" rubbish!

Box ticking...obviously.

Development Matters isn't a resource it's non statutory guidance intended as a working document to inform "practitioner" knowledge of developmental stages so they can plan effectively. Unfortunately like many documents it is often used for purposes never intended.

Page 12 of the statutory document
" To judge whether a child's learning and development is exceeding the practitioner should use the best fit model and be confident that the child has moved beyond the expected level"

Quite. I don't want to go wading through it across 7 areas for each individual child either. It might not matter if the schools eyfs results look quite average. But my first yr 1 class were not even close to looking anything like normal bell curve.

Non-specific emergingnot helpful. Giving a DM age band would be useful, but if you are going to have to do that, why have the label emerging at all?

Really Tired assessment is something that teachers can do automatically like breathing ... The problem arises when teachers are wandering round with clipboards and cameras waiting for a child to do something rather than getting on and teaching. If you know your children you notice when they do things for the first time independently (it's one of those hugely satisfying moments) and make a mental note without missing a stride

Informal assessment is very different to the eyfs. It becomes cumbersome when teachers have to produce evidence and there is moderation. Is the eyfs to assess children or the teachers? Why does it matter if it's easier to exceeding in one school than another?

Development Matters isn't a resource

I don't know why so many posters are getting tied up on the wording of the word resource. It is true that Development Matters was touted as a guide by the same DFE policy makers that modified the EYFS profile to the 2012 profile to be used along with the profile. There are many schools that track progress along the age bands particularly when nurseries are included or developmentally delayed children. I think its all bunk but at least the new EYFS is not as bad a practice as the old. But just looking at the teacher posts on this thread regarding the confusion of what exactly is exceeding, expected and emerging. Even with moderation it's not being applied in a uniform way across LEAs - schools across England.

Sorry but I also think that when a teacher has 30 pupils - no way can she just instantly assess all of them and know them so well - and it is completely subjective - even with evidence. Until kids are old enough to sit a test such as the Phonics Test(but even that has been plagued with human non-objective malpractice), there is really no completely fair way to assess and ability group.