Baseline Assessment Project 99/2001
Interim Report (June 2000)
Aims



To promote school effectiveness in Key Stage 1.
To stimulate and encourage school improvement.
To raise attainment through effective teaching and assessment in KS1.
Objectives







To set up a project by which the LEA can work with a group of schools to develop
a coherent approach to the use of on-entry baseline assessment;
To help schools to develop strategies through working together to use baseline
analysis information in KS1;
To enable teachers to review current teaching methods and share effective
classroom practice;
To support schools in developing a planned programme of assessment and
monitoring in KS1;
To develop class-based target setting with pupils and staff;
To develop strategies for communicating baseline information to parents and
promoting partnerships between home and school;
To establish and promote links between pre-school providers and schools.
Project personnel
The project was directed by Carol Atkinson (General Adviser) and managed by two
Curriculum Project Managers, Lin Skilleter (Early Years) and Angela Jones (Baseline
Assessment).
Reception teachers in primary and infant schools were invited to apply for
involvement in the project. The full support of the headteacher was requested.
1
Objective 1
To set up a project by which the LEA can work with a group of schools to develop
a coherent approach to the use of PIPS on-entry baseline assessment.
The schools involved in the Baseline Assessment Project reflect the diverse profile of
the East Riding of Yorkshire. There are 47 involved, including small schools with
whole key stage classes. The 12 East Riding partnerships are represented. Since the
project began, a number of other schools have shown interest in future involvement.
This issue has been discussed with reference to a parallel project being established in
September 2000.
The project teachers completed a ‘needs analysis’ questionnaire. The information was
used to inform project planning and arrangements for individual school visits.
The project meetings were organised locally when appropriate. The project team
leaders organised training opportunities to meet the needs of the individual teachers
and their schools. The identified criteria used for group training were:
 School’s needs;
 Size of school;
 Version of PIPS used (CD or text);
 Structure of class;
 Pre-school providers;
 Established partnerships;
 Geographical.
The project team, the PIPS team based at Durham University and the RSQA team,
supported individual schools. All teams, involved in the project, worked together in
providing further ‘bespoke’ information for individual schools as required.
The project team collected start and end of reception data from the project schools,
undertaking an analysis of these results. This information was used to identify the
following:
 The more-able children in each school;
 Attainment profiles for the project schools;
 A project comparison of average scores in reading and maths;
 Pupil matched data analysis (baseline pilot schools 96/97 and end of KS1 results);
 Partnership comparisons of PIPS results;
 LEA comparisons (all LEAs using PIPS).
The project team was invited to attend the PIPS Conference (March 2000). The
conference report will be disseminated to all project schools at future training
sessions. The speakers (Prof. Peter Tymms, PIPS Director, and Prof. Carol Taylor
Fitz-Gibbon, Director of the CEM Centre at Durham University) were inspiring and
their research work into raising achievement from 3-18 (‘ASPECTS’ – ‘A’ Level)
was very interesting. The CPM discussed the possibility of cross-LEA meetings to
enable discussion about PIPS assessment work. Prof. Peter Tymms offered to coordinate this meeting by contacting all LEAs to investigate the work/projects being
undertaken across the country, and also to ascertain the interest in cross-LEA
dissemination. This was organised in June 2000 and the CPM was invited to give a
presentation about the outcomes of the Baseline Project.
2
Objective 2
To help schools to develop strategies through working together to use baseline
analysis information.
A Baseline Assessment Seminar was organised to launch the project. This was lead
by Prof. Peter Tymms, PIPS Director. The seminar was very well attended (70+) and
provided a highly successful introduction to the work of the project. The organisation
of an annual seminar lead by Peter will be considered.
Whole project group, small group and individual school training underpins the
planning for the project.
Training provided centrally covered the following areas:







The content of the start and end of reception assessment scheme (language, maths
and Personal and Social Development);
Understanding the PIPS analysis and using it diagnostically (Objective 2);
Interpreting the PIPS results effectively to inform planning for individuals and
groups of children;
Using the feedback of results to identify more-able children (in-depth study
undertaken in 14 project schools outlined in Objective 3);
The identification of low ability children with reference to monitoring their
progress over time;
Using baseline results as a starting point for the monitoring of pupils’ progress in
reading and maths;
The effective use of the P.S.D. assessment on-entry into primary/infant schools.
The teachers identified a common need for clear, concise guidance in the use and
interpretation of the PIPS feedback. The CPMs involved in the project devised a
support booklet to guide teachers in this area, ‘Analysing Your PIPS Results’. This
booklet was trialled and evaluated by the project schools. After the written
evaluations were collected, the booklet was produced and sent to all LEA primary and
infant schools for optional use. Ofsted (spring term 2000) commended one LEA
school using this booklet. A similar support booklet for the end of reception feedback
will be produced and used in training for all year 1 teachers in the project schools.
Another area for development identified through discussion, was the use of the raw
scores in the baseline assessment procedure. The PIPS analysis can take up to 8
weeks to return to the schools and it is therefore important that the reception teachers
make effective use of the raw score results for maths and reading to inform short-term
planning. The CPMs devised a matrix to enable the teachers to record individual
children’s results and also identify common areas of strength and those in need of
development. This matrix was disseminated at training in preparation for the start of
reception assessment, September 2000.
3
Objective 3
To enable teachers to review current teaching methods and share effective classroom
practice.
In the light of the introduction of the Foundations Stage in education and the Early
Learning Goals, specific training was organised. The Early Learning Goals document
was summarised by the Project Director and disseminated to all project schools. After
explanation of this summary, the project teachers were given an interim task to
evaluate their own classroom practice with reference to the new initiatives and the
PIPS baseline results 99/2000. The teachers returned their evaluations to the project
team and this information was collated to inform training which would impact on
classroom practice. Teachers felt that by working through this evaluative process,
they were able to identify specific areas for development in school.
Using the PIPS baseline assessment results 98/99, the project team could identify
children whose reading and maths results were high (70+ standardised scores). These
children’s schools were visited (14 in total); to ascertain the effective strategies used
to meet the needs of the more-able child in KS1. A report was written by Carol
Atkinson (Project Director), outlining the findings, which included information about
settings, staffing, planning and implementation, testing and assessment and parental
involvement. This document was shared with the project schools and the CQD team.
It will provide the focus for future developments in the work of the project.
In the development of this study, schools were grouped to enable visits and sharing of
good practice (summer term 2000). Monitoring sheets were devised to support the
teachers in the identification of the visit focus and also to enable the teachers to record
their findings at management, class and pupil levels. These findings will be shared
with the whole project group to develop the confidence of teachers in providing
experiences to meet the needs of the more-able child.
The project teachers requested further training in meeting the needs of the more-able
child. This was arranged and was lead by Janet Kelly (Adviser) in the spring term
2000. Schools are requested to complete Record Cards for their more-able children,
which enables monitoring by the school and the LEA.
Objective 4
To support schools in developing a planned programme of assessment and monitoring
in KS1.
All project schools use the PIPS Baseline Assessment Scheme on-entry into the
reception class (full or part-time). The majority of schools also use the PIPS end of
reception assessment (administered in June each year).
The following information is provided through using these PIPS assessments:




Individual children’s raw scores in maths, reading and phonological awareness to
enable direct, immediate comparisons between children in the reception group;
Individual standardised scores in maths, reading and phonological awareness to
enable national comparisons of attainment (individual child and subject);
Individual children’s total scores;
The distribution of scores in maths and reading for the whole group;
4




The progress made over the reception year in reading and maths (value-added);
Individual children’s attitude information;
The developments in each child’s personal and social profile;
Chances graphs, giving percentage chances of levels of attainment at the end of
KS1, calculated using end of reception baseline assessment results.
Teacher assessment is vital in the process of monitoring in the reception year. Many
teachers use their own on-going assessments and evidence to enable them to
interrogate or question the baseline results with confidence. Many school visits have
been organised to discuss baseline assessment results with specific reference to valueadded information. Headteachers and staff were concerned where negative valueadded results confounded their own assessments. The CPM encouraged the staff to
add their own professional judgements to the PIPS information and enabled them to
‘unpick’ the PIPS feedback. If the concerns were thought to be valid, further
investigations were undertaken by the CPM on behalf of the school (checking OMRs
and feedback for inaccuracies, considering the evidence of teacher assessment,
enabling further analysis work by PIPS and the LEA). This advice and support was
vital in re-establishing the schools' confidence in the use of PIPS.
Schools in the project were interested in the chances graphs information. This
encouraged many schools to organise whole KS1 meetings to discuss target setting in
reading and maths for individual children. The PIPS information is based on past
years’ baseline assessment results and therefore must be used with caution. However,
the charts provided a focus for staff discussion and also promoted the development of
a target setting culture in KS1.
The PIPS team has developed an assessment package for use at the end of year 1
(99/2000). Ten East Riding schools volunteered to trial this material (7 of these being
involved in the project). The trial schools evaluated the materials, the administration
procedures and feedback, then presented their findings to locally organised project
meetings. Many schools had compared the PIPS assessment with the Hodder &
Stoughton Reading Progress Test 1, which had been recommended for use in year 1.
Evaluations included the following feedback from teachers:
 the assessment was appropriate for use with small groups at the end of year 1;
 the child’s booklet was lengthy, but could be used in sections;
 the materials were well-presented (teacher’s and pupil’s booklets);
 the content and feedback were linked to the PIPS end of reception assessment;
 the oral administration helped teachers to meet the needs of the less able children;
 the inclusion of a P.S.D. assessment is useful.
On the basis of the evaluations from several LEAs, the PIPS team has revised the
materials, and has offered all schools in the East Riding the Year 1 Assessment
Package at a reduced cost this year (to be administered in June 2000). Individual
schools will register with PIPS before Easter 2000 to use this assessment. PIPS are to
notify the Baseline Assessment CPM of the schools who are interested.
5
A small number of schools have shown an interest in using PIPS assessment every
year in Key Stage 1. The CPM has provided information to these schools about other
PIPS assessment available (example copies of the PIPS year 1 and 2 assessments have
been collected by the CPM).
PIPS have devised an assessment package for use in nurseries and playgroups
‘ASPECTS’ (ASsessment Profile for Early years Children and ToddlerS). Five
schools trialled this material, one of which offered to give verbal feedback to the
CPMs and the other project schools. Information and registration forms were sent out
to all nurseries and playgroups in the East Riding (March 2000).
The planned programme of annual assessment used by many of the project schools is
as follows:
ASPECTS Assessment (optional use in nursery)

PIPS Start of Reception Baseline Assessment (first half term)

PIPS End of Reception Assessment (optional use in June each year)

PIPS Year 1 Assessment (optional use in June each year)

End of KS1 Statutory Assessment (and optional PIPS Year 2 Assessment)
These assessments will enable schools and teachers to monitor reading and maths in
KS1 and will also include P.S.D. profiles for each child. Schools often use the PIPS
P.S.D. framework to support or devise their own profiles, which enable teachers to
monitor developments through the school.
In our support of individual school’s needs identified within the project, training and
school visits were arranged  The year 1 teachers were trained in their use of the End of Reception Assessment
and feedback. This was particularly useful because these teachers were not
involved directly with the administration of the assessment in reception, but had to
use the PIPS feedback for their own planning at the beginning of year 1.
 New reception teachers or teachers moving into reception were trained in the use
of the baseline assessment material.
 Training was organised for nursery nurses working in a reception class because
many of them had the responsibility for the administration of the baseline
assessment.
 Whole KS1 staff meetings were held to develop the effective use of the PIPS
information in classes/schools.
Concerns and queries from project schools about teacher assessment in KS1 were
recorded and the project team and the CPM with responsibility for assessment offered
support and advice.
6
Objective 5
To develop class-based target setting with pupils and staff.
Although this area had been identified as the focus for the project initially, the
introduction of the Early Learning Goals and the Foundation Stage had given the
project a different direction. However, the second year of the project would be
planned to develop this area in all schools.
Centrally held meetings will be organised in the autumn term 2000, which will
involve representatives from one school where target setting is well established and
effective in raising standards in KS1. The evaluation of the project ‘Target Setting in
the Classroom’ will also be included in this training (Jeanne Mundy CPM
Assessment). The development of this focus will then involve small group work and
school visits.
Objective 6
To develop strategies for communicating baseline information to parents and
promoting partnerships between home and school.
One of the common areas for development identified by the project schools was
communicating assessment information to parents. Specific training was organised to
meet the needs of the teachers involved. The CPM (Early Years) outlined the legal
requirements of schools in giving assessment information to parents. Many teachers
were unaware of their position in meeting this requirement and they were asked to
report this information back to school.
PIPS and the LEA have always recommended that individual pupil’s scores
(numerical form) need not be given to parents, unless they have a parent request or it
is in the interest of the child to do so. Two of the project schools do give numerical
scores to all parents. One school had had no problems associated with this process,
but another had had several concerns expressed by parents. The difficulties arose due
to the fact that parents did not understand the information and further parent meetings
had to be arranged to explain the whole process of baseline assessment. It was
stressed at the project meetings that sharing baseline assessment information with
parents should take the form of identification of individual’s strengths and areas in
need of development. These specific areas could then be used to develop tasks, which
could be supported at home. The emphasis was placed on the extension of
parent/school partnerships.
Although the DfEE produce national parental guidance leaflets for parents of children
in reception, it was agreed by the project members that it would be more useful if the
East Riding schools had their own information specifically about PIPS. The CPM
provided all teachers with a framework for this support material for parents. The
teachers were asked to evaluate this framework and respond in writing, considering
their own parents in their school. These responses were collated and the East Riding
support leaflet was produced and disseminated to all primary and infant schools.
These leaflets could then be distributed at parent meetings often organised towards the
end of the summer term.
7
The CPMs involved in the project offered their support to schools in organising and
presenting parent meetings. Several schools requested this support and this was
organised depending on the individual needs of the school.
Objective 7
To establish and promote links between pre-school providers and schools.
The project schools reflected the diversity of pre-school providers available (small
schools with limited playgroup/peri-nursery time allocation, large schools with a
nursery class or several private providers, etc.).
The project team organised small group workshops and training opportunities for
schools with similar pre-school provision (summer term 2000). Training will include
the identification of good practice in the use of transfer information and baseline
assessment results. The ‘Starting Points’ materials will be recommended to support
and focus pre-school/reception discussions, etc.
Project schools with good practice and effective pre-school/school partnerships will
be identified and will be visited by the CPMs. The findings of these visits, including
effective strategies used, will be shared with other project schools.
Future areas for development within the project schools are:






Baseline assessment in the identification of S.E.N (dyslexia),
The use of the Personal and Social Development assessment in schools,
Benchmarking and how the baseline information can be used to compare with
similar schools;
Developments in the use of a Year 1 assessment package,
Monitoring of pupils’ progress in KS1;
Boy’s attainment and progress in KS1.
In conclusion
The training and support given to the project members has been very closely matched
to the national agenda of change in early years education and the individual school’s
needs. This has led to:
 Enthusiastic teachers who are keen to develop their own teaching and extend their
understanding of assessment;
 Supportive Headteachers who have encouraged KS1 school project dissemination;
 Groups of teachers with similar concerns and successes being able to work
together to review their teaching methods and share good practice;
 A greater understanding of the attainment information available in KS1;
 Baseline assessment information being used more effectively in the
classroom/school;
 Empowerment of teachers (who feel fully informed and are making the changes in
education work for them in their class/school).
 Requests from several non-project schools to become involved in the Baseline
Assessment Project.
8