Suffolk EYFSP results
2013
Part 2
Summary report
Produced by Janine Pettit & Hannah Alston - August 2013 (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED)
Page 1
Contents
Part 1
Pages:
1.
Contextual Information
3
2.
Good Level of Development
5
3.
Supporting measure (ATP)
6
4.
Points score distribution
7
Part 2
Pages:
5.
Performance in the 17 Early Learning Goals
3
6.
Comparisons by gender
5
7.
Comparisons by Free School Meals (FSM)
6
8.
Comparisons by term born
7
9.
Comparisons by SEN
8
10. Lowest 20% of achievers
9
11. Executive summary and recommendations
10
12. EYFSP results by Children’s Centre
See Annexe A
Produced by Janine Pettit & Hannah Alston - August 2013 (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED)
Page 2
5. Performance in the 17 Early Learning Goals (ELGs)
In this section we are looking at the performance of all pupils within the Suffolk cohort rather than by
individual characteristics.
Chart 5.1
% of pupils emerging, expected and exceeding in:
100%
90%
The proportion of pupils assessed as emerging, expected and exceeding
across al Early Learning goals.
10.3% 10.6%
15.5%
15.6% 15.2% 13.3% 12.4% 12.7% 12.2%
9.1%
10.2%
8.7%
7.0%
8.7%
5.2%
8.7%
7.7%
80%
70%
51.7%
60%
50%
59.1%
65.0% 66.4%
64.9%
73.8% 76.0%
72.2% 72.8% 73.7%
56.2%
68.5% 75.5%
73.6% 82.1% 74.4% 75.1%
40%
30%
20%
10%
39.3%
19.4% 18.4% 21.8%
28.2%
13.8% 11.3% 15.6% 16.8% 15.7%
30.7%
22.9%
17.5% 17.8%
12.7%
17.0% 17.1%
0%
Exceeding
Early Learning Goals
Expected
Emerging
Chart 5.1 shows the proportion of all pupils assessed as emerging, expected and exceeding across the
17 Early Learning Goals (ELG). The proportion that achieved (expected or exceeding) in the four literacy
and mathematics ELGs were the lowest across the whole Profile. More specifically, the lowest
proportion of pupils achieved ‘writing’ (60.7%) and ‘numbers’ (69.3%). In comparison the highest
proportion of pupils achieved in ‘Health and self-care’ (88.7%), ‘Technology’ (87.3%) and ‘Moving and
handling (86.2%).
Where average percentages are used in the narrative below, please use the table of average
percentages as a guide to help your understanding of the proportions of the cohort being referred to.
These average percentages have been calculated on the actual percentages of pupils assessed at each
level across all Prime and Specific learning goals:
Average percentage of pupils Emerging
Average percentage of pupils Expected
Average percentage of pupils Exceeding
19.8%
69.5%
10.8%
Produced by Janine Pettit & Hannah Alston - August 2013 (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED)
Page 3
Prime Area of Learning – Communication and language
All ELGs show a below average percentage of pupils assessed as expected. Both ‘Listening and
Attention’ and ‘Understanding’ have a higher than average percentage of pupils assessed as emerging.
However all three ELGs, including ‘speaking’, also show a higher than average percentage of pupils as
exceeding.
Prime Area of Learning - Physical development
This is the strongest prime area of learning, with the ‘Health and self-care’ aspect having the lowest
number of pupils overall assessed as emerging and the second highest number of pupils assessed as
expected.
Physical Development has the highest number of pupils with a good level of development. In 2012,
Physical development was a single scale. In 2012 it had the second highest percentage of pupils
achieving a score of 6+.
Prime Area of Learning - Personal, Social and Emotional Development
ELGs, ‘Managing feelings and behaviour’ and ‘Making relationships’, are also similar to those for
Understanding the World. However the number of pupils assessed as emerging is slightly lower and
those assessed as exceeding is slightly higher.
The ELG, ‘Self-confidence and self-awareness’, showed the highest level of achievement within the
overall goal. There was a lower than average number of pupils assessed as emerging and higher than
average numbers of pupils assessed as expected or exceeding.
Specific Area of Learning – Understanding the world and Expressive arts and Design
This area of learning demonstrates good results. The ‘Technology’ ELG has one of the lowest numbers
of pupils assessed as emerging, and the highest number of pupils assessed as expected.
However, it is worth noting that Understanding the world’s high numbers of pupils assessed as
expected, is due also to the fact they this goal has some of the fewest numbers of pupils assessed as
exceeding.
This is also apparent for the |Area of Learning, Expressive arts and design.
Specific Areas of Learning – Literacy and Mathematics
These two areas demonstrated the poorest results overall, when compared to the others.
Historically, ‘Reading’ and ‘Writing’ in the old assessment framework have always been Suffolk’s
weakest area, though it should be noted that improvements had been made over the last few years.
Literacy, in particular, has the highest number of pupils being assessed as emerging and the lowest
numbers of children as expected. A positive note though is that the ‘Reading’ ELG had the second
highest number of pupils assessed as exceeding.
‘Writing’ is the poorest ELG in Suffolk overall, and has the highest percentage of pupils assessed as
emerging, nearly 40%, which is double the average.
Mathematics shows a similar pattern to literacy, though not to the same extent, it fairs only slightly
better. The ELG, ‘Numbers’, is also an area for concern. Again, the number of pupils assessed as
emerging is amongst the highest and pupils assessed as expected or exceeding is below average.
Produced by Janine Pettit & Hannah Alston - August 2013 (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED)
Page 4
6. Comparisons by Gender
The percentage split of the genders in 2013 remains consistent with previous years. 50.7% of the
cohort is boys and 49.3% are girls in 2013.
Chart 6.1
Percentage of pupils assessed by gender
60
Percentage
55
50
50.75
50.7
49.25
49.3
51.5
48.5
51.42
50.87
49.12
48.58
51.19
48.81
50.7
49.3
Femal
e
45
40
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
2011
2012
2013
Chart 6.2
Percentage comparison of Girls and Boys
assessed as Expected or Exceeding in each area
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
92%
91%
86%
75%
86%
83%
77%
81%
74%
85%
90%
88%
89%
81%
77%
79%
88%
86%
84%
80%
78%
80%
77%
67%
74%
72%
69%
91%
90%
86%
76%
76%
67%
53%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Girls
Boys
Overall, the girls outperformed boys in all ELGs. Chart 6.2 shows that girls performed best in the ‘Health
and Self care’, whereas boys performed best in ‘Technology’.
Both girls and boys both performed least well in ‘Writing’, which interestingly is also the widest gender
gap at 16.2%. The second widest gender gap was in ‘Eploring media and materials’ at 15%. The
narrowest gender gaps were in ‘Technology’ at just 2%, ‘Numbers’ at 4.6% and ‘The World’ at 4.7%.
Produced by Janine Pettit & Hannah Alston - August 2013 (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED)
Page 5
7. Comparisons by Free School Meals (FSM) entitlement
Only a small proportion of the total cohort is entitled to Free School Meals, which is 16.71%. Pupils
entitled to free school meals are from an economically disadvantaged background.
Chart 7.1
Number of pupils in cohort by FSM eligibility
8000
6826
7000
Number of pupils
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1369
1000
0
FSM
Non-FSM
Chart 7.2
Percentage comparison of FSM and Non-FSM pupils
assessed as Expected or Exceeding in each area
100%
88.0%
90%
82.9%
83.8%
80%
70%
60%
50%
68.4%
80.7%
76.0%
69.9%
90.9%
77.4%
86.4%
85.5%
89.2%
86.3%
84.9%
84.8%
80.0%
73.9%
71.1%
73.5%
75.0%
65.2%
72.1%
64.0%
55.1%
69.9%
84.9%
84.6%
77.3%
68.7%
73.0%
73.6%
62.1%
54.3%
43.8%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
FSM
Non-FSM
Overall, non-FSM pupils outperformed FSM in all ELGs. Chart 7.2 shows that both FSM and non-FSM
pupils performed best in the ‘Health and Self care’ ELG.
Both FSM and non-FSM pupils both performed least well in ‘Writing’, which is again the widest gap at
20.3%. The second widest gap was in ‘Reading’ at 19.9%. The narrowest gaps were in ‘Being
Imaginative’ at 11%, ‘Exploring media and materials’ at 11.8% and ‘Technology’ at 11.9%.
Produced by Janine Pettit & Hannah Alston - August 2013 (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED)
Page 6
8. Comparisons by term born
The total number of pupils in the cohort who have been assessed in 2013 is 8195. The graph below
shows the number of pupils in the cohort by the term in which they were born.
Chart 8.1
Number of pupils in cohort by
term born
4000
3000
3580
2000
2627
Spring
1988
1000
Autumn
Summer
0
Autumn
Spring
Summer
Chart 8.2
100%
Percentage comparison of pupils by term born
assessed as Expected or Exceeding in each area
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Listeni
Moving Health
ng and Unders Speaki and
and
attenti tanding ng
Handli self
on
ng
care
Selfconfide
nce
and
selfawaren
ess
managi
Explori
Shape,
ng
People
ng
Making
space
Being
feeling
Readin
Numbe
and
The Techno media
relatio
Writing
and
imagin
s and
g
rs
commu world logy
and
nships
measur
ative
behavi
nties
materi
es
our
als
Autumn Born 85.5% 86.7% 84.1% 91.1% 92.0% 88.9% 86.1% 87.8% 79.4% 71.9% 78.3% 83.9% 87.8% 87.3% 91.1% 86.9% 86.8%
Spring Born
82.0% 83.6% 81.1% 88.2% 90.1% 86.2% 84.8% 85.8% 74.4% 64.6% 73.0% 79.9% 84.2% 84.0% 88.8% 85.1% 85.0%
Summer Born 75.9% 76.5% 72.1% 81.2% 85.3% 79.9% 79.9% 80.6% 64.5% 50.1% 60.3% 70.4% 77.4% 77.3% 83.4% 78.8% 78.6%
Autumn born pupils outperformed Spring and Summer born pupils in all ELGs and Spring outperformed
Summer born pupils in all ELGs. Chart 8.2 shows that pupils performed best in ‘Health and Self care’
whatever term they were born in.
All pupils both performed least well in ‘Writing’, irrispective again of what term they were born in. The
widest gap is between Autumn and Summer born pupils for this ELG at 21.8%. The second widest gap
was in ‘Numbers’ at 18%. The narrowest gaps between Autumn born compared to Spring and Summer
was in ‘Managing feelings and behaviour’ at 1.4% and 6.3% respectively. The narrowest gap between
Spring and Summer born was in ‘Health and self care’ at 4.8%.
Produced by Janine Pettit & Hannah Alston - August 2013 (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED)
Page 7
9. Comparisons by SEN
Chart 9.1
Chart 9.1 to the left shows the
number of pupils in the cohort
with and without SEN.
Including a breakdown of
pupils with SEN to show the
proportion that are school
action, school action plus and
have a statement of SEN.
Number of pupils in cohort with SEN and NonSEN
8000
7000
Statemented
Number of pupils
6000
School
Action Plus
School
Action
Non SEN
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Non-SEN
SEN
Table 9.2
Non SEN
All SEN
School
Action
School
Action Plus
With a
Statement
Listening and attention
85%
43%
44%
46%
22%
Understanding
85%
46%
49%
47%
20%
Speaking
83%
37%
45%
37%
10%
Moving and Handling
90%
52%
56%
54%
18%
Health and self-care
92%
58%
63%
59%
22%
Self-confidence and self-awareness
88%
53%
61%
54%
17%
managing feelings and behaviour
87%
45%
51%
46%
12%
Making relationships
88%
48%
53%
49%
18%
Reading
75%
38%
35%
41%
18%
Writing
64%
26%
25%
28%
10%
Numbers
72%
40%
38%
43%
30%
Shape, space and measures
81%
45%
47%
46%
22%
People and communities
86%
49%
52%
51%
20%
The world
86%
51%
56%
52%
20%
Technology
90%
64%
71%
65%
32%
Exploring media and materials
87%
49%
52%
51%
20%
Being imaginative
86%
49%
54%
49%
17%
Table 9.2 above shows all pupils were least likely to perform well in ‘Writing’, whether they had SEN or
not. Pupils with a Statement of Special Educational Needs were all less likely to perform well in
‘speaking. Pupils with SEN performed best in ‘Technology’, whereas non-SEN pupils performed best in
‘Health and self-care’.
School action or school action plus pupils had a tendency to also perform well in ‘health and self-care’.
Pupils with a Statement of Special Educational Needs also had a tendency to perform well in ‘numbers’.
Gaps between all SEN and non SEN children were wide in comparison to the other characteristics. The
greatest gaps were in the ‘Speaking’ and ‘Managing feelings and behaviour’ ELGs where the gaps were
45 and 42 percentage points respectively.
Produced by Janine Pettit & Hannah Alston - August 2013 (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED)
Page 8
10. Lowest 20% of achievers
Chart 10.1
Proportion of each characteristic type that are in the lowest 20% of
acheivers
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
59%
20%
10%
15%
35%
25%
17%
16%
26%
17%
14%
0%
Girls
Boys
SEN
Non-SEN
FSM
non-FSM Autumn
Spring
Summer
Individual pupil characterisitcs
Proportion in top 80%
Proportion in lowest 20%
Chart 10.1 shows that 59% of pupils with SEN are in the lowest 20% of acheivers compared to only 16%
of the pupils without SEN.
The total points scores for pupils in the lowest 20% ranged from 17 to a maximum of 27 points. 17% of
the lowest 20% scored just 17 points and therefore emerging across all 17 Early Learning Goals. 11% of
the lowest 20% scored 27 points. At 27 points it is a likely a pupil will have been assessed as emerging
in 7 ELGs and Expected in 10 ELGs.
Chart 10.2
Percentage split of characteristic types in the lowest 20% of cohort - plus
comparison against % split of total cohort
100%
90.2%
90%
83.3%
80%
70%
71.2%
60%
50%
49.3%
70.6%
63.5%
50.3%
56.6%
43.7%
40%
32.1%
30%
36.5%
28.8%
24.3%
29.4%
16.7%
20%
22.3%
21.1%
9.8%
10%
0%
Girls
Boys
SEN
Non-SEN
FSM
non-FSM
Autumn
Spring
Summer
Pupils individual characteristic type (denoted by colour)
% split of whole cohort
Produced by Janine Pettit & Hannah Alston - August 2013 (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED)
Page 9
11. Executive summary and recommendations
Forward
This analysis is of Suffolk’s Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) results for 2013. It does not
include a comparison against national data as this has not been published by the Department for
Education yet. Further analysis will be carried out and shared in a similar format once this is published.
It is not possible to compare the data from the EYFSP this year with data from previous years as the
EYFSP has changed.
Who is this for?
The data pack is for anyone working within the EYFS and Year 1 or with leadership, subject or
assessment responsibilities within a school.
How should it be used?
This pack has been produced so that schools, settings and those who work with them are aware of the
county’s EYFSP outcomes and the achievements that are being identified in terms of Early Learning
Goals and groups of children. Schools may find this useful when analysing their own EYFSP data if they
wish to compare their school’s data with the county picture.
Children most vulnerable to underachievement.
When looking at both Good Level of Development (GLD) and Average Total Point Score(ATPS) as
measures it can be seen that that the youngest children , boys , children with SEN and children receiving
Free Schools Meals (FSM) are “scoring” least highly. In relation to all these “characteristics” it will be
important for schools to look at the profiles of individual children to analyse what their strengths and
areas for development are. It may not be surprising to teachers who know the children in their class
that those who are youngest or have SEND may need more time to achieve a good level of
development. However the lower outcomes for boys and children in receipt of Free School Meals in all
assessment scales will cause concern and require investigation.
Comparisons between Early Learning Goals (ELGs)
Suffolk’s strengths in terms of the percentage of children who achieved either expected or exceeding
levels are ‘Health and self-care’ (88.7%), ‘Technology’ (87.3%) and ‘Moving and handling (86.2%). The
areas in which the lowest percentage of children achieved either expected or exceeding levels are’
writing’ (60.7%) and ‘numbers’ (69.3%). These scales influence whether or not children are considered
to have reached a good level of development. ‘Writing’ is the poorest ELG in Suffolk overall, and has the
highest percentage of pupils assessed as emerging. Although both girls and boys both performed least
well in ‘Writing’ it is also the widest gender gap at 16.2%. %. Although it is not possible to compare
these percentages with national data at present, this data indicates that a priority in Suffolk must be to
improve outcomes in writing for all children and most importantly to consider how this can be achieved
for boys. Number is also an area for concern with the number of pupils assessed as emerging amongst
the highest although the gap between boys and girls is far lower at 4.6%
Priorities
An analysis of EYFSP data at county level leads to the conclusion that priorities must be to improve
outcomes for those children living in economic disadvantage and boys. It will be for schools to
interrogate their own data to draw conclusions about their priorities in terms of areas of learning and to
consider EYFSP outcomes in the context of whole school data analysis. However it is clear that Writing
and Numbers are of concern at county level. It will be interesting to compare data with national data
and for schools to consider whether this is an assessment or teaching issue, or both.
12. Results by Children’s Centres (See Annexe A)
Produced by Janine Pettit & Hannah Alston - August 2013 (NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED)
Page 10