Join other headteachers and talk about the challenges of the role in the TES Headteacher Group. This is the place to get advice from your peers on all aspects of school management including dealing with governors and parents.
Let's leave aside the moral issue of reducing a 6 year old child's experiences at school to a number between 0 and 5. In Key stage 1 how many points progress is a child meant to make if s/he is making good progress.
I'm almost embarrassed to ask the question.
Essentially, average progress is one point per term. (Three points per year and 6 points over two years. Hence the expectation of 12 points progress between KS1 Tests in Year 2 and Key Stage 2 Teats in Year 6).
Anything over one point per term (e.g. four points over the year) would be 'good' progress.
We do generally say that each year 3 points is satisfactory.
4 points would be very good as that would equate to 2/3 level for all children on average. Across KS2 this would move a 1b childre to 4c- which I feel would be very good- 8 sub levels. 9 sub levels or more I would say was outstanding, personally. This would mean a year group avergae in Y2 of 15 points (2b) would be 33 points in Y6 (L5!!) So, I accept around 3.5 average as good.
Whilst we agree similar APS progress expectations in KS1, it's not always straightforward as it depends on 2 things: 1- how many children in Y1 enter the key stage within the National Curriculum levels 2- where you equate the FS points to levels- we have had endless debates about this one!
However, there are some serious flaws in the system:
If 6 FS points is the expectation by thew end of Reception, then a child at 6 points coming into Y1 would be expected to acheive 2b (15 points) by the Y2 tests, if you work backwards assuming 1 level in 2 years for satisfactory progress this means the child whould be a 1b at the beginning of Y1.However, officially, there is only a score of 9 points for L1 (no sublevels).
This raises a number of issues, firstly, 6 points (in my opinion) does not equate to 1b (I would say 1c but it's still not a perfect fit as the FS scales are very wide-ranging and they have found little correlation between most scales and KS1 outcomes). This means, in 2 years, to make satisfactory progress the child needs to make 4 sub levels in 2 years (8 points), making 4 points per year satisfactory for this 'average' child.
Also, if your school is not breaking down L1 and giving all L1 children 9 points on entry to KS1, if a 1c child makes 6 points, they reach 2c which is not the expcted level. If a 1b (also given 9 points) makes 6 points progress they reach 2b (average/expected). A 1a, also given 9 points, makes 6 points and reaches 2a, an above average/expected level.
Children entering the Key Stage still at FS points also make progress difficult to measure. Some children might not access NC levels until towards the end of Y1 or later. So how do you average out the progress of a child who enters on 4 points and does not access 1c until March of Year 1?
The other issue might be that a child entering, say Y2, at 1a could be at the very bottom end of 1a (just 1 mark into the sub level). They might progress through the sub level and into 2c and be at the very top of 2c sub level (1 mark away fom 2b) by the May test. However, the child will only be awarded 2 points. By July, they may be into 2b and have made 2/3 of a level (4 points). However, because they were at the very bottom of the 1a sub level and they were assessed in May their progress looks inadequate.
Trying to measure 1/2 a level a year when the steps are given in 1/3 of levels is pretty difficult. We can't measure 3 points in the year for 1 child, only as an averageof the class/group but the avergae may be skewed by the issues above.
When Dearing wrote the levels, he never meant for them to be assessed other than at the end of the key stage. Measuring each year is virtually impossible!
There are also lots of transfer issues from Key Stage 1 into Key Stage 2 because level 3 is 21 points with no sub levels.
So, in short, yes 1 point per term, 3 points per year, 6 points (1 level) in 2 years is satisfactory. 3.5, perhaps 4 is good. But other factors need to be taken into consideration and the results and averages drilled down at the end of the year.
Sorry if this clouds the issue even more, but we have been handed an impossible set of yard sticks!
This document does make a look simple, but I beg to differ!
thanks very much for replies. Re the FSP score/ NC equivalent. It might be worth measuring progress from the end of Autumn 1 in Year 1 (rather than the end of FS) when teacher assessment will be much sounder.
MrsC@TheGatesThe other issue might be that a child entering, say Y2, at 1a could be at the very bottom end of 1a (just 1 mark into the sub level). They might progress through the sub level and into 2c and be at the very top of 2c sub level (1 mark away fom 2b) by the May test. However, the child will only be awarded 2 points. By July, they may be into 2b and have made 2/3 of a level (4 points). However, because they were at the very bottom of the 1a sub level and they were assessed in May their progress looks inadequate.
This has really helped my understanding. Thank you, I will now go and hang myself!
I can't link to the site but the position of the National Assessment Agency is made clear in the following statement:
"Some LA's and commercial companies have produced materials that attempt to equate FSP scale points to NC sublevels.......Any equation of FSP scales or scale point scores to NC levels on invented sublevels is a spurious and ultimately inaccurate exercise."
Whilst I agree that a child achieving high scores is likely to be above average, you have to understand that these children are being assessed with wildly different maturities and parental support. I work in a deprived area and it is quite common for a low achieving child with low level entry in nursery and reception to suddenly mature or catch up after their earlier disadvantages and achieve high levels at KS1. Equally I have seen many a child who has been pushed and hothoused by thier parents achieve high scores but then plateau and end up with fairly average end of KS1 scores.
The one thing that reasearch has shown is a good indicator of achievement is PSED and Speaking and listening scores. Without good scores in these at FSP then good achievement in the other areas will not continue. Obviously we know how EBD issues can affect progress for all children whatever their age, but he S&L scores also make sense. i.e for writing the children only have to be able to write simple sentences using phonic knowledge. Most children are capable of this with good phonics teaching. However to really progress in writing they need the vocabulary and understanding etc. Children with poor S&L skills dont have this.
Personally I agree with another poster that perhaps target setting should be done at the end of the Autumn term for Y1 classes when under achieving children move onto P levels anyway and more children are likely to be moving into a 1c.
Having somehow managed to avoid the issue of APS over the last few years I suddenly found myself needing to understand the data a bit more and came across this thread ... once the dark feelings of gloom subsided and I looked further down my google list I came across this gov pub ... which many of you may have seen by now, but thought I'd add it. I quite like it, although it doesn't match up to what my school's Y1 have been doing to set targets from FSP scores :(
Thought id move this up again to see if people are finding expectations for ks1 are moving up higher than ever. Even if we ignore the issues of moving from FS to KS1 which I know is a huge one how many points progress in KS1 is expected and good we are being told 6 and 8 which unless ive totally got confused means pretty much everyone should get L3 of some kind which of course has knock on for KS2 too
Surrey are telling us that 8 over the two years is expected, 10 good and 10+ outstanding. During a recent Ofsted inspection a local infant school was told unless 6 APS in Year 2 alone, the school would be RI!!!! The DH then showed them the Surrey guidelines and they accepted it. All too fuzzy though and no official guidelines from DfE or Ofsted make this really tricky especially with EYFS thrown in.
See what that school weretold by Osted fits what our LA are saying ie 6pts yr ks1 = expected below could lead therefore to RI, cant see why saying this is what our LA say would get Ofsted off your back. Trouble is the 8pts per year good means your children coming from FS on 3pts would still get to 3c by end ofks1 and need l6 ks2 to be good, if aim for 80% good I cant even begin to imagine how we could achieve this
Top of page