child not allowed to be marked as "exceeding expections" in reception year

[azimazi]

just met the teacher for DD's first parent consultation in reception.

she's a bright kid and pretty much v good at most early things (started reading already, knows all sounds and is blending words, that kind of thing, good with numbers etc) as we have done it at home for ages...I know many of the other kids can't do this.

teacher pretty much told me this and that she is one of the kids at the top of the class, but then told me that she is "at expectations" level for everything but this doesn't reflect her actual ability, because if she puts her higher at "exceeding expections" it will follow her around and look like she's not learning if he drops into one of the other groups prior to year 6.

So I guess her thinking is that she wants him to look like he's learning whilst at school and progressing and is reluctant to put him in his actual level, which from what I gather of our convo, could be the "exceeding expectations" level for at least a few of the subject areas.

To me this sounds odd and I am trying to work out if it's normal for schools to do this or she doesn't believe DD is good enough for the top levels? Or is it because the school wants to look like they are responsible for making the progress? Or is it in DDs interest as the teacher framed it, so it doesn't look like she is dropping down in future if she fails to meet the higher levels?

Any light you can shed on this strange sounding grading policy would be great.

While of course I sympathise with teachers who are expected to show progress in a linear fashion where this is not how children develop, I do not think they should massage the figures!

I was worried about this with my DD as she started school (as an autumn born, reader, generally ‘ahead’ sort of child). I would not have been happy with them recording false data, and would have queried this. Fortunately, their assessments seemed pretty accurate.

I don't fully agree with HonestTeacher on some details. A child that is ‘exceeding’ is not necessarily ‘gifted’. Also, there are 17 categories. A child that can read might score exceeding on the reading category, but not necessarily for being imaginative. There is plenty of opportunity for the teacher to spot an imbalance that might have been caused by ambitious parents, and grade somewhat cautiously. Equally, it must be easy for a teacher to spot a really bright child who deserves to be graded ‘exceeding’. Also, a child whose parents have taught them to read will probably continue to get support from home.

OP, try not to get too hung up on it (as you can see, I did when my DD was in YR!) but do keep an eye out, particularly when it comes to the final EYFS report. If that final grade doesn’t match everything else the teacher is saying and your daughter is doing, don’t be afraid to question it.

Over the years, I've experienced few things which really annoyed me. One biggest thing was his target was set way lower than his actual ability. When queried, teacher simply said we haven't covered that topic yet. So, if the child has skills but haven't given a chance to show them because they haven't covered yet in class, they seemed not to check too see his actual ability, and simply say it's his new target.
We had great teacher at reception and yr2, but rest of teachers are all the same so far, including his yr5 teacher this year.

I came to the conclusion that report doesn't really matter(but end of the year one normally reflect more close to actual ability).
I think what the teacher actually do in class matter more than what's been written.
So as long as your dc's teacher sets work according to your dc's level, it's not so bad. It's when teacher doesn't set properly and dc's are made to do works they can do few years ago, it's a bit of a problem. And seems like that's the case in my ds's school. (But I already given up, after few attempts in yr3.)

A target should always be based on something the child finds difficult (already taught) not something they’re yet to cover.

It is completely wrong imo to base future performance and targets on performance at end of eyfs. A significant proportion of summer born boys especially doesn't hit the writing target. The autumn borns generally do much better, hardly surprising. So it's not ability that is measured so much as age/maturity.

But using this throughout school is surely entrenching the summerborn disadvantage (especially as they dont even need to attend really till yr1. )
If dd had now been half way through yr r rather than yr 1 as by age a sept born her writing would probably already be met as it was she scraped this by the end of the year.
If you are going to use the targets going forward ideally they would be at same age. So actually autumn borns should be assessed only in sept/dec. And SB in july. After all they have had the time in nursery.

I would keep doing your own thing and not worry about grades my DS was expected in reception and year 1 and then in year 2 he was great depth across the board.

In Year 2 He got 100 percent in all sats and was apparently one of the best readers and writers. I didn’t even know much about sats as was busy working and teacher was very low key about them.

The year DS was in year 2 he was largely ignored by myself and his father and I felt terribly bad in that I was only able to check his reading at weekends because I was doing insane working hours and there was other issues going on so I was totally surprised when the teacher raves about him.

I wonder now if he was greater depth in reception and year 1 but whether the teachers didn’t want him or them to have pressure as I recall now that he was reading chapter books etc.

But now in key stage 2 he is currently a good expected and I can see that they (his teachers) want him to be greater depth.

Fortunately from what I can tell DS has had brilliant teachers so I don’t worry about it and figure they have their reasons for what they assess. As long as he is happy and interested in learning then I am happy.

Hi - what you wrote suggests its your DD and then you refer to him. An odd mistake to make about your kid! Are you furreal?

garlican - yeah i just made up an imaginary situation and child for the hell of it.... (strange thing to bother making up a post about!?)
if you RTFT posts I explain what happened...

It is probably because they haven't covered the whole reception curriculum yet so the teacher is saying she is exceeding on the statements they've covered and top of the class in those, but that she cannot yet be 'exceeding' even if the teacher feels she likely will be in all the other things they are yet to properly cover because no proper assessment will have taken place.

I wouldn't sweat over it. It is just a label but doesn't capture where your DD is and the teacher seems to have given high praise.

I presume it's so they can get better value added scores, whether that be an internal or external assessment.
It's a nonsense really.

Lots of schools/nurseries use the early learning goals incorrectly they are only intended for the end of the Key Stage so exceeding wouldn’t be used until the summer term. This doesn’t mean that teachers can’t provide appropriate challenging work.
Part of the problem is the descriptions of developmental matters age bands are so woolly and cover a huge range of ability. A child at 40-60 reading could be decoding simple sentences or reading War and Peace.

They can do this with reading books as well. I remember my DD1 was on Level 7 by the end of Reception, but was then moved back to level 5 at the beginning of Year 1. It was quite confusing and demoralising for her at the time, because she couldn't understand why she'd been 'downgraded'. A friend of mine worked at the school and explained that the teachers regularly did this to ensure the appearance of progress at the end of the year. Ridiculous.

Since I’m not judged on what book band my pupils are reading (I don’t know any school who do this perhaps parents judge this way?) it wouldn’t make it look like my pupils are making more progress. I do move them back to books they’ve read previously if I think they aren’t reading fluently or with good understanding.