Whatever the new EYFS framework from September 2012 looks like (and ‘meeting’, ‘exceeding’ and ’emerging’ seem to be the new buzzwords) one thing is for sure: schools will still need to measure progress from the old-style 0-9 scores for some time to come. Well, at least until the current reception finish keystage 2!
Primary schools, especially schools with ‘satisfactory’ results at KS2 are under huge pressure to prove that their pupils make lots of progress during the school career. Recently, several schools I work with have been trying to measure progress from reception to KS1 and KS2. This is difficult as there’s no official correlation between the EYFS scores used to record progress at the end of reception and the national curriculum sublevels used between KS1 and KS3.
But as schools have become more confident using both scales, so they have felt able to make some linkages between the two. This month I’ve worked with three schools who have attempted to make these linkages and, suprisingly perhaps, all three schools came up with a similar scale. Here it is:
It’s not intended as a definitive table. If you want to use it I’d recommend that you look at your current Y1 and Y2 pupils and see if the correlation holds. And of course you need to remember that officially there is no correlation between attainment at EYFS and attainment at KS1.
Once this table is integrated into Assessment Manager, for the first time it’s possible to calculate an APS for pupils at the end of reception, and then compare it with the APS of pupils as they progress through KS1 and KS2.
Hi, I’ve worked in a number of authorities in an assessment role and have only just seen this scale as it is here. I have always been shown the odd number as the secure/higher sub level. This makes sense to me because the odd number is the one that is always reported. Therefore, if a child was a 2B they would be 15. In school and all my other previous work we have always given that as 2b upper. If you’re assessing a child externally as a 2b you would want it have achieved all of 2b (higher) and not just into a 2B (lower) so why then is there another point (16) within the 2b. I’m sorry it makes no sense to me. I have seen a 6 as P8 and only 1ps for L1c to be a 7. I would be grateful if you could direct me to where this correlation has come from.
The use of the 1a to represent 15 points and the use of 1a* to represent 16 points is quite common in the schools I’ve visited. Some schools do treat 16 points a 2c- but not many. The rationale I’m usually given is that many pupils may stay on a 1a all year, but they have made progress, not necessarily all the way to a 2c but progress that should be recognised in the point score for the pupil and the average points score for the cohort.
The p scale information originally came from a National Strategies document which I can no longer find but NASEN have a similar scale at http://www.nasen.org.uk/uploads/publications/129.pdf
I’d like to add the disclaimer that I’m not a teacher, nor am I an early years practitioner or an SEN expert. But I do spend a lot of time in schools implementing assessment systems.
Thanks David, I was a strategy consultant and we used to use the 2b 14/15 in all the 5 authorities I’ve worked in, but like you cant find any of this information now. I can’t find anywhere any official recognition to the aps/level link other than the odd number eg 2b – 15. The Nasen document refers to L1ii (assuming a 1B) within the range >=8 and <10, I would link this to 8-9.9 therefore for schools 1b is 8/9. I understand what your saying about maybe not making all the progress to the next sub-level but I would have thought that if we are reporting externally as we do in KS1 with each sub-level then you would only report the higher part. So if a child achieves a L2b they are reported as a 15 by raise-online etc wouldn't you expect them to have achieved the sublevel and be ready to move onto the next? I'm questioning this because there is talk about us changing our aps in school and to be honest it doesn't make sense to me and I have spoken to friends that are using both of them. Also different consultancy companies use both. In the end I suppose it doesn't matter as long as through the school you use the same ones. I know there is a link to FFT data does that show any correlation to the banding?
Found some information on the raise summary report pg 22 that groups them 13/14 etc. but to me then you are reporting a child working within the level and not having achieved it! Doesn’t make sense to me but there you go.
It’s no wonder schools get confused with so much conflicting advice even from ‘official’ websites!