HT MONITORING EYFS and implications for SEF by K5DWvQV7


									                     HT MONITORING EYFS and implications for your SEF
                        from a discussion with Hilary Quincey 28.01.10

Recommendation that CTs should update EYFSP data on e-profile or other electronic tracking
system at least 4x per year – this can then be the basis of discussion for HT pupil progress
     Early October to analyse on entry data to see where areas of need
     December to inform planning for Terms 3 and 4
     End of term 4 - progress towards Early Learning Goals and to inform planning for terms 5
     June to monitor data before EYFSP statutory moderation & submission of data to LA ; links
      with EY settings re data coming in; links with Y1 teacher(s)
     At each stage data can be used for gap analysis and planning to meet the needs of the
      „Unique Child‟

OCTOBER: Point of Entry data - YR teachers should use e-profile to plot on entry information
(grid from My Unique Story) as soon as possible in term 1, using EY setting information, transition
meeting / home visit information from parents/carers and own observations.
HTs should look at:
     Grids/graphs for the whole cohort (separate classes if more than one) to see overall areas
         of strength and areas to develop. ... do these mirror problems in KS1 / KS2?
     Individual grids/graphs for every child – to monitor future development / SEN / G&T. Good
         idea to moderate data of a few individual pupils using Early Years Foundation Stage Profile
         handbook Section 7 has pen profiles to ensure judgements are secure – It is expected the
         majority of pupils will secure 1, 2 or 3 points for each area - there will only be scores of
         zero on entry in exceptional circumstances
     The 13 areas for gap analysis so as to see if planning will meet needs – later in the year
         are there particular points that no children have achieved? If so, this may be a resourcing

This will give you the point of entry data evidence to compare against end of FS for SEF
section 2.3 purposes. The aspiration is that children should be scoring 6 points or better across
all 13 scales depending on point of entry scores, and data should demonstrate clear progress

Be careful to ensure that 6+ and 78+ points PSED and CLL is not seen as the goal – ideally
children ought to be at 8 and there will be children at 7, 8 and 9 in areas and must be recorded as
such (Ofsted will probably be checking against p4 ROL)
     Look at the Kent exemplification folder and profile handbook to ground judgements
     Use the phase grids for phonic development for tracking progress of all children

DECEMBER: Quality of provision – look at the holistic nature of the curriculum – e.g. for writing
also consider scores for physical development, creativity, language for thinking etc, not just
     Review how the learning environment is there to ensure that those who can – are able to
         achieve 8 or 9 points
     G&T opportunities will rely on open ended problem solving / long term projects allowing for
         independent research
     Assess areas where progress is slow – what is needed to enhance opportunities

AND AFTER same as above but additionally look at :
   process rather than product
   KS1 AT1 provision - not the content but how children that are ready can access
   How children are developing methods of self evaluation

MR 28.01.10
      How teachers use the TASC concepts in planning with children – what do we know
       already? What do we want to find out? What research is needed before we make a plan –
       what are the outcomes etc.
      Analyse what learning is going on in assemblies / PE etc ... it‟s the “so what?” question?
      Using your on entry data and the MFST analysis – what issues in YR are being dealt with in
       KS1/2? If there is a whole school issue – what is in your School Action Plan

Reviewing Data
    It may be useful for HTs to use the graph showing % of children achieving 6 or more points
      in EYFSP across the 13 aspects (National & LA for the last 2 years) to analyse your
      children‟s progress.
    The EY team found last year some schools where the shape of their data curve nowhere
      near matched this. In some cases these were pure input errors (e.g. 18% instead of 81%),
      but some HTs had not reviewed the final data submitted, whilst others were unaware of the
      national/LA profile.
    The EY team appreciate that some schools have data above or below this across the
      board, but where the profile is very erratic it often indicates a lack of understanding of the
      linkages between all the different aspects and scale points, lack of evidence, quality of
      provision or ongoing tracking

Remember - the statutory moderation process does not verify the final data submitted - it looks at
the accuracy of the judgments made by class teachers against the profile points. (See the
revised criteria for this year) If needed, support can be brokered from the EY team to support class
teachers and SMT. There are also training opportunities to share moderation practice in the spring

MR 28.01.10

To top