In nearly all cases, when we use the phrase ‘age-related expectations’ we actually mean curriculum expectations. The teacher’s assessment reflects the pupil’s security in the curriculum at that point in time, taking into account what has been taught and understood so far; the only link to the child’s age is the year group they are in, which defines the curriculum they are taught. Beyond that – unless the school is using age-standardised scores derived from some commercially available tests – the pupil’s age is not taken into account when making an assessment.
It is only in the Early Years phase of education where ‘age-related expectations’ is applied in its truest sense. Here, age becomes an important factor and is an integral part of non-statutory assessment frameworks such as Development Matters. The differences between September and August born children can be considerable – a year’s difference in age at this point in life is huge – and assessments will account for this by considering what is a typical level of development for a child of a particular age. This means you can have two pupils at different stages of development that are both considered to be at ‘age-related expectations’ because they were born at opposite ends of the year.
This age-related approach to assessment is both meaningful and appropriate for the youngest children but it can become problematic when pupils enter Reception where there are two statutory assessments – the Reception Baseline (RBA) and the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) – neither of which are adjusted for age. The RBA is less of an issue because summer born pupils tend to close the attainment gap over time and make good progress. This means that low baseline scores are likely to be of benefit – and no one sees the results anyway – but making age-related assessments across the reception year towards the non-age-adjusted EYFSP can present challenges. It is feasible that we could deem a summer born pupil to be at a typical level of development for their age – and therefore working at ‘age-related expectations’ – only for that pupil to miss key Early Learning Goals (ELGs) at the end of the year.
Consequently, tracking pupil progress in Reception is tricky. We want to take account of the pupil’s age when making an assessment but we also want an indication of whether they are on track to meet key measures at the end of the year. The methods of assessment commonly employed from year 1 onwards do not tend to do justice to the former. Levels-style approaches don’t work because there is no specific band that all pupils should be in at any one point in time. True early years assessment means pupils of different ages can be meeting age-related expectations despite being at different stages of development. Hence, it was always a mistake to divide age-stage bands – which deliberately overlapped! – into sublevels and suggest there was a particular band all pupils should be in each term. ‘Point in time assessment’ (PITA) approaches do a better job because terms like ‘expected’ or ‘working towards’ are relative and can refer to age- related as well as curriculum-related expectations. But it’s not ideal to have an approach to assessment that is applied differently across the school.
So what’s the ideal solution? The short answer is: there isn’t one. But an option is to make two assessments: one that relates to age-related development, and another that indicates whether the pupil is on track to meet the ELGs at the end of the reception year. A simpler alternative is to opt for the latter approach and – to achieve the age-related element – group the results by term of birth. This will reveal if summer born pupils account for the majority that are not on-track to reach a good level of development at the end of EYFS. An on-track-style assessment will also ensure consistency and comparability when pupils move into Year 1.
Assessment is never straightforward and this is especially the case in the foundation stage where we are dealing with the youngest children who can be at markedly different stages of development. It is, therefore, vital that we adopt appropriate methods of assessment and implement flexible systems, which are capable of capturing data in a meaningful format. What works in key stages 1 and beyond will not necessarily translate to EYFS where age is a critical factor and our definition of ‘age-related expectations’ varies from one child to the next.
Age is a challenge but that’s what makes it so interesting.
Further reading:
For more information on data and tracking in Early Years, read Chris Inman’s excellent blog post, which covers both statutory and internal assessment.
Leave a Reply