Starting points in Y1

[junkfoodaddict]

I am at loggerheads with my SLT over their methodology of converting Reception data into equivalent NC levels at the beginning of Y1. I teach Y2 but noticed that 3/4 of my class were expected to get a 3c at the end of this academic year yet 1/3 of them are only working at 1b or less; 3 of them unable to produce 2 legible sentences - random 'favourite letters' as well as peculiar phonetic attempts to spell, poor word order and grammar.
What I noticed on looking at the data was that most leaving YR were graded '2' and the SLT converted this to a 1c which meant a 2c by end of Y1 and a 3c by the end of Y2. As I understand a '2' means expected which is simply to write a simple sentence unaided that can be deciphered by an adult. We in school follow the Ros Wilson Big Write mRk scheme and clearly stAtes that a 1c needs to be a minimum of 3 sentences and not all starting with the same words that mKe it 'listy'.
I think that a '3' should be a 1c equivalent (the old 9 point scale had a 9 as a 1c equivalence), a '2' should be a WA and a '1' a WB. The SLT put those with a 3 as a 1b. My FS colleague said she had no input into this and agreed with me and said she would look to see what other schools had done and so far, nothing.
So I would be interested to see how other schools are converting the reception grades into NC grades for the purpose of target setting.

I level my year 1s in October and data is measured from there. Mind you, our reception teacher is beyond useless (that's a whole other thread) so SLT believe her more than me! More importantly I'm expected to get 2 sub levels progress is year 1 then 3 in year 2. Also, we use odd APS as well as even numbers on the tracking so I can give 1c- or 1b+. That way I can continue to show progress throughout the year ??

I think allowing Y1 to assess children in the October is a good idea. Trying to convert Reception data into NC levels is impossible because the criteria is so different. Pity my HT can't see that. Going by their assessments from October Y1 would mean they are true and show exactly where they are.

We did the same thing. Lots coming up from Reception with expected levels being converted to 1C, which they clearly weren't. We assessed and levelled at end of the first half term, and used those as our baseline, though originals still stayed on Pupil Tracker so it looked as if loads had gone backwards...but at least I could argue my case at the end of the year with the October set of data to use as a reference.

That conversion is just ridiculous! There are several ways of looking at it - if a child got a 2 at end EYFS, then they met their end of year expectations, in which case, they could reasonably be expected to get a 2B at the end of Y2. (and nationally this year, 70% of Y2 pupils got 2B, so this would be along the right lines to your 3/4 getting a 2). I would then be looking at how many exceeded at end EYFS, and use this as a guide for a L3 target which is also exceeding the expected level (nationally 24% in 2014).

That said, if, as another poster indicated, the teaching in EYFS has been less than ideal, or if the children came in low and need more than 10 months to catch up with their national peers, then just using end EYFS results might limit your end Y2 targets. What I would do in this scenario is to identify the 25% most able pupils, and target them for L3, then identify the 75% most able to get level 2B+, and 90% to get 2C+. (I stress that this is only if the end EYFS results would suggest a lower attainment than this. If they suggest higher, e.g. if 40% had achieved a 3 at end EYFS, then 40% could be predicted a L3).

What it boils down to is that we use the end EYFS results to predict and target end Y2, but we would never target a cohort of children for results that would be lower than national average. We would of course target for higher than national average if the end EYFS results were suggestive of this, or if historically we tended to achieve above national because of the outstanding progress made in KS1.

But having 3/4 of Y2 children targetted a L3 just doesn't seem right - you would be off the scale! Find out what percentage have got a L3 for the last 3 years, and ask your SLT why the sudden jump?!

I should have added, that we tended to do all this in October as well, once they had had half a term in Y1.