End of yr1 levels.

[lovecheese]

So, whats the norm? I know that is like asking how long is a piece of string, but what is the expected levels at this point?

sorry rollacoasta

twice!

Too much wine, mrz

Oh so I'm confused my ds 5 (end of yr1) got inline with national expectations for writing and between in line with and above for maths and reading. Teacher said 1B writing and 1A maths and reading when I asked. But according to what you say he's below in writing and in line with for reading and maths. .

Please answer honestly.

Because there are only national expectations for Y2 (2b) and Y6 (4b), individual schools have to make it up for other year groups.

As you can see just from the debate on MN, it varies between 1a and 1b from school to school. Your school aren't worried, and there's no reason why they should be - it's just a guess.

And our school says that average at the end of Yr 1 should be 1A or 2C.

Well feenie as you seem the godmother of educational knowledge do you mind if I ask you another question? (sorry op if im hijacking)

Whats the expected/average score/level a child should get for EYFS profile stage at end of yr r???

TIA

Would you assume a child entering Y1 on EYFS profile score of 6 to attain a 1a by end of Y1?

Does your aspirational target of 1a by the end of y1 assume 1c on entry (8/9 EYFS PS)? Do you have very high EYFS profile scores?

mrz - I meant APS as average point score

Ah rollercoasta you are almost answering my above question. DS (aug baby) got 6's for literacy (7 for linking letters etc) and all 7's for PSRN. I got told working near to age expectations. (ie not quite there yet!)

Now at end of yr 1 1b in writing and 1a in reading and maths. From what you said thats actually very good progress.

I'm very confused as I was told a 6 was average and accepted as good for EYFS and children who got a 6 eyfs ps often reached 2b in SATS???

Whats your opinion on this??

Yes it assumes 1c on entry to Year 1, but we acknowledge that often situations exist where that doesn't happen.

We tend to have some very high EYFS profile scores and some low - not many in the middle lately.

6 is indeed average for EYFS, and seen as on target for a 2b.

However, children are not robots, and develop at different rates and very rarely make these neat little jumps. Very often there are great developmental leaps in Year 1, and more often in Year 2 (which is why I love teaching Y2 the most).

All of this data is just a vehicle for teachers and senior management to spot when there may be a problem or a difficulty and enables us to act on it straight away. So rest assured, if there is something you need to know as a parent it should be spotted very quickly and you would be told. The data is not designed for Mners to get the heebie jeebies about.

And before Cortina jumps in regarding limiting progress, the data exists to highlight difficulties, NEVER to put children into boxes, I promise. Apart from in your dc's school, which the more I hear about I dislike intensely.

I may have had some wine

Yes, 6 is usually seen as around 'average' in EY.

Because of the non-specific nature of EY profile and the fact that children develop erratically in Y1/2, projections based on the profile scores are often wrong. Unfortunately the government database doesn't take this into account and makes projections about end of KS1 attainment from the EYFS profile scores. This provides the data (used by Ofsted) to show whether children are making good/satisfactory (etc) progress in KS1.

as I thought. I'm actually an early yrs practitioner and would be unconcerned about any child who got a 6 for eyfs ps. I'm an lsa in sn school so have knowledge of nc levels but more about p levels (1-3!)

I would have said a 1b/1a for an aug baby was good but suddenly thought I may be a little too happy about ds' levels that aren't actually that good

My DS got 5s (so below average) in his CLL (literacy) section of his EYFS and at the end of Year 1 is reading at level 2b (well above average).

Maybe he is an exception, but it seems quite reasonable to me that some children (especially the younger ones) will be slow starters so EYFS scores are a bit meaningless for predicting future progress.

My son got a 4 in reading in EYFS - so way below average - and his teacher assessed him as reading level 2B at the end of Year 1.

This is from the National Association of Head Teachers

"Point scores are levels of achievement and not the points in the profile, i.e. a score of 6 does not mean profile 6, it means point 3, plus 3 aspects achieved of sections 4-8. Children with the same points score will therefore probably have a different level of achievement.

Because of the nature of some of the scale points, confusion can exist when LAs/SIPS/Ofsted are interpreting FSP data.

? There is ongoing research into the relationship between FSP and KS1 outcomes, and it would appear that some of the links are spurious.

? NAA are allocating resources and advice to the most ?inconsistent?LAs,i.e.those LAs whose knowledge of, and experience in, FSP progression is patchy. In other words, where LAs are using the data incorrectly in an attempt to ?drive up? standards.

? The FSP is for organising children`s learning, not target setting.The forthcoming NAA Report will recommend training for all stakeholders, particularly in the inappropriate use of profile data. There will also be inter-LA moderation conferences. (NAHT has asked for schools to be included in these).

? Some scale points, known as ?super scale points?, with research, appear to have a greater link to KS1 outcomes than others, particularly those that involve creativity, thinking and applying, rather than rote learning. Some specific scale points (the ?super scale points?) seem to indicate that without them, a child is unlikely to achieve more than 2c at KS1.

? It is therefore not enough to say that the acquisition of 6 scale points is indicative as an acceptable basis for the next stage; it depends upon the particular scale points achieved.

As this is still at a research stage, and is not yet fully in the public domain, it may be prudent to move ahead with caution. However, when this is considered in terms of LA pressure and SIPs visits, as well as Ofsted, the message coming out is that none of these outside bodies should be applying undue pressure on schools with regards to FSP outcomes when discussing targets for later years` achievements. Any correlation it would appear, is currently insecure.

ah mrz you are a font of knowledge. Thankyou that does make sense what you've said above. I've always agree its not always what you learn BUT how you learn.

An example is my ds who has poor spacial memory and manual dexterity which resulted in a 0.6 for DEST in year r. School however do not have concerns as his phonic knowledge is very good and therefore although it takes him longer to read and write he is ABLE to read and write iyswim. The other day he decided to read me some Harry Potter as I'm reading it to him. He was able to bild up extremly long words but easier ones such as Privett (drive) he didn't recognise over and over but he could sound it over and over.

well done to redsky and can'tfinds ds' for their reading

I got my little boys report today and havent aclue what all the 1a 1b and 1 mean has anyone got a link so I can read lol!

Skimming through this very quickly and also trying to get my head around all the levels.....dd has received a score of 2c for the end of Year 1. Assuming based on the above that this is OK or even slightly above the average?