Primary Assessment consultation March 2017
Draft response from Early Education – for comment by members
Q6. The EYFSP measures a child’s development against the ELGs set out in the EYFS statutory framework. Should the profile be improved to better assess a child’s knowledge, skill, understanding and level of development at the end of the early years? If so, please describe which elements could be added, removed or modified.
a) We note that the consultation raises the issue of including self-regulation within the Profile. We agree that this is important but as this is already covered within the Characteristics of Effective Learning, the best way for self-regulation to be reflected in the Profile is to include the Characteristics (see (i) below).
b) The current EYFSP is well established and understood by practitioners, with a consistent time series of data from 2012, so changes should only be made to the EYFSP if there is clear evidence that this will improve the quality of the information collected sufficiently to outweigh the additional cost implications of a change, and the additional workload on school and local authority staff which would be involved in familiarisation with the changes.
c) Workload and training issues must be put in the context of any other changes introduced within a similar timescale – bringing in a new baseline assessment at the same time as changing the Profile, for example, would have an extremely damaging impact on teaching in the reception year.
d) In considering the Profile, ministers must remember that the EYFS is a key stage in its own right. The EYFSP is a summative assessment at the end of the EYFS key stage, fitted to the needs of children from age 0 to 5.
e) The principles of EYFS teaching and assessment could be extended to children aged 6 or 7. The converse does not apply -- it is vital that teaching and assessment approaches from KS1 and above are not pushed down into the reception class, as they are simply not appropriate for children aged 5 and younger.
f) The EYFSP currently serves two purposes; the primary purpose is as a summative assessment to aid children’s transition between reception and year 1.
g) The secondary purpose as an accountability measure is linked to some existing evidence of gaming of the EYFSP. Consideration should be given to reducing the high stakes use of assessment data to prevent distortion. Greater use of sampling for accountability, for example, would avoid gaming and impact of high stakes testing.
h) The greatest problem with the EYFSP data as it is currently used is the so-called “Good Level of Development” (GLD). This was arbitrarily set by government and is not based on evidence of what a typical level of development is at the end of the reception year, in particular in relation to the Early Learning Goals for literacy and mathematical development. Limiting the GLD to those children who attain the unrealistic literacy and number goals leads to sweeping statements about large numbers of children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, “failing”. It also has a distorting effect on children’s experience and the curriculum.
i) Consideration should be given to revising the GLD to be a more rounded reflection of children’s attainment. The EYFSP is about ensuring schools are ready for children (as a result of having good transition information) as well as ensuring that children are “ready” for school. In this context, the GLD’s current focus only on the Prime Areas, Literacy and Maths is too narrow to be helpful - early literacy and numeracy outcomes are very poor predictors of later success in school. Far more relevant are whether children are developing the Characteristics of Effective Learning, which are strongly linked to self-regulation which research shows is a critical basis for learning, as the government recognises in this consultation document.
j) We suggest the GLD be defined as attaining the Early Learning Goals for the prime areas (Personal, Social and Emotional Development; Communication and Language; Physical Development) and a non-binary score for the Characteristics of Effective Learning (see below). In addition, the specific areas could be represented by identifying an overall total score across all areas which would not privilege Literacy and Mathematical Development over other areas of learning. By using these three scores, professional judgements would be stronger as they are triangulated.
k) In relation to the inclusion of the Characteristics of Effective Learning within the GLD, we commend the assessment tools developed by Bristol City Council (www.bristolearlyyears.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Bristol-EY-CoEL-Final-Document.pdf) , which gives a useful framework for assessing children. It provides a points score on a graduated scale (not yet/rarely/sometimes/often), instead of using a deficit-based binary model. Including the Characteristics of Effective Learning in this way would not only provide a much more valid assessment of children’s learning and development, but would also have a positive impact on early years practice by focussing on aspects of development that are among the most significant for young children.
l) To avoid any increase in workload, this could replace the existing statement which practitioners are required to write for each child on their development in relation to the Characteristics Effective Learning, to be reported to parents and year 1 teachers.
m) The ELGs for Literacy and Mathematical development need to be modified because unlike all the others they are not typical of children at that age -- this is evident from the data which shows children scoring disproportionately lower against these ELGs (see graph below). They are unrealistic expectations and inappropriate, and have negative knock-on effects on children’s experience by distorting focus on getting children to reach these goals.
n) This is exacerbated in some cases where practitioners may be adding in additional requirements under pressure from headteachers or local authorities, such as interpreting writing a sentence to include use of capitals and punctuation. The wording should therefore be tightened to avoid misinterpretation.
Suggested changes to ELGs
The following is our suggested amended wording for the ELGs:
Literacy
Reading: Children read and understand simple text using a range of strategies including context, visual memory and phonics. They use their phonic knowledge to decode regular words and read them aloud accurately. They also read some common irregular words. They demonstrate understanding when talking with others about what they have read.
Writing: children write to record their own ideas in a range of circumstances. They use their phonic knowledge to write words in ways which match their spoken sounds. They also write some irregular common words. Their writing can be read by themselves and sometimes by others. Some words are spelt correctly and others are often phonetically plausible.
Mathematics
Numbers: children use numbers in a range of circumstances. They can reliably count sets of objects to at least 10, and can say which set has more or less. They recognise and order numerals to at least 10. They solve everyday problems in practical contexts using addition and subtraction by joining or separating sets.
Shape, space and measures: children use everyday language to talk about size, weight, capacity, position, distance, time and money to compare quantities and objects and to solve problems. They recognise, create and describe patterns. They explore characteristics of everyday objects and shapes and use mathematical language to describe them.
The wording of the ELGs needs to have regard to equality issues, including recognising that children have different development pathways - eg in relation to boys and reading. The wording therefore needs to be applicable to all children, and reflect what is a reasonable expectation for children at the end of reception.
Q7. The EYFSP currently provides an assessment as to whether a child is ‘emerging, expecting or exceeding’ the level of development in each ELG. Is this categorisation the right approach? Is it the right approach for children with SEND?
a) We believe the current categorisation is the correct approach and should not be altered. The issue is not the categories, but practitioners’ understanding of “best fit” and confidence in making professionally informed judgements, with triangulation of decisions based on the exemplification.
b) Too often practitioners are using the ELG summative statements (and the descriptors included in the earlier bands in Development Matters) not for guidance on a best-fit basis in identifying a typical range of development, but instead within their formative and summative assessment processes as a checklist of isolated skills. This unhelpful, inaccurate and time-consuming approach is exacerbated by the plethora of electronic packages that present assessment in this way.
c) This is an issue for guidance and training at all levels, and continued support for the professional development of practitioners (including teachers). Additional funds should be spent on professional moderation & training, not software systems or expensive baseline assessments.
d) The Profile handbook is very good and helpful, eg on responsible pedagogy, and we hope this will continue in its current form.
e) We note that there are concerns over systematic biases in way that ELGs are scored but feel these could be addressed by tighter definitions. We believe the biases currently result from people putting their own spin on the requirements (for example, asserting that “writing a simple sentence” means something that has a capital letter and a full stop, or is in cursive writing). They can also be the result of gaming when the assessments are used for high stakes purposes.
f) In relation to the category “Expected” (not “expecting” as stated in the consultation), we would prefer the use of the word “Typical”, but given that the terminology is well established, we feel perhaps it would be better not to try to change this.
g) While the classification “Emerging” clearly is not sufficient to describe the learning and development of children with SEND or indeed others who have not reached the ELGs, the EYFSP specifies that more information must be provided in such cases. We would suggest the use of the Early Support materials for children with SEND. These should be added as a supplement to the documentation accompanying the Profile.
h) For all children, the Profile is meant to support a conversation between the reception teacher, parents and year 1 teachers, and should always be supplemented by more detailed transition information.
Q8. What steps could we take to reduce the workload and time burden on those involved in administering the EYFSP?
a) The purpose of the EYFSP is to provide a summary of each child’s development at the end of EYFS. It should be a simple, clear summary, to share information accurately about the child. A secondary purpose is accountability. The current EYFSP serves both purposes, but it is important to be clear about the distinction between summative and formative assessment. Practitioners observe children throughout their time in the foundation stage; this is formative assessment which is integral to the practitioner’s cycle of observation, assessment and planning. The EYFSP is a summative assessment which draws on the practitioner’s observations throughout the child’s time in the setting, and thus should be quick and easy to draw together using a professionally informed, best-fit judgement.
This model of assessment (from EYFS 2008 and Development Matters 2012) describes the formative cycle, which is a statutory requirement in the EYFS. There are no requirements for the process to be recorded, and much of it is based on the knowledge of skilled practitioners who will use this approach on a moment-to-moment basis, as well as in longer term assessment and planning. Using the best-fit approach, many settings draw on their knowledge of the child to produce a termly summary. The EYFSP, as an end-of-year summative assessment, follows exactly the same process and is the only required summative judgement.
b) Because the EYFSP draws on, and is the culmination of, ongoing observational assessment as set out in the EYFS Statutory Framework section 2.1 it is consistent with the assessment principles of the EYFS and is not a large additional workload It just requires completion of a one-page document.
c) Where workload problems exist this is generated by requirements that do not arise from the EYFSP itself but are externally driven – for example approaches taken by some headteachers, local authorities and online “tracking” systems lead to practitioners spending lots of time generating and inputting large amounts of “evidence”.
d) The workload could therefore be reduced by more clarity about what is required as part of statutory assessment – so that it is fully transparent to all those involved including local authorities, headteachers and Ofsted, particular in relation to schools inspections. For example the Ofsted Early Years Inspection Handbook (August 2015. 150068) gives helpful guidance on what is required for assessment in the EYFS. Including something similar in the Ofsted Schools Inspection Handbook for assessment may prevent some of the issues raised above around gaming.
e) As mentioned above, we recommend adding the Characteristics of Effective Learning to the Profile, which would involve scoring an additional nine statements. Practitioners should already be observing these, however, and DfE could then remove the requirement to write a statement on the Characteristics, which many practitioners currently find difficult.
Q9. How could we improve the consistency and effectiveness of the EYFSP moderation process whilst reducing burdens?
a) Moderation should be built in throughout the EYFS as part of everyday good practice as described in section 2.1 of the EYFS. A national process of accreditation for moderators needs to be brought back, with only accredited moderators taking on the role in local authorities. The Profile should be a short summary at the end (summative), but the assessment should be continuous, against where children are at the time (formative).
b) A review may be needed as to whether local authorities still have sufficient resources for moderation, and if not how should this be tackled. The requirement to pass through 95% of the EYNFF funding has been made without a proper assessment of the resources needed to deliver statutory duties of this sort.
c) Gaming occurs because of high stakes accountability based on assessment scores. The Profile has become distorted to be about the data and not the children, whereas it should be about transition and promoting consistency and continuity for children. The Profile data would be far more reliable for accountability if used on a random sampled basis, with the high stakes element for any individual school removed.