Guest post By Anthony Orme
Schools today have access to a wide range of assessment data to help track and support student progress. Among the most widely used are Fisher Family Trust (FFT), CEM, and MAP assessments. Each offers a slightly different approach, and it is worth thinking carefully about how these tools are used to inform teaching and learning.
FFT and CEM provide predictive data and value-added measures that are particularly well suited to schools offering qualifications such as IGCSEs and A Levels. In contrast, MAP assessments tend to be more closely aligned with US curricula and focus on maths, English, and science rather than a broad spread of subjects. This makes them very effective for schools following US-based programmes, but they do not provide as wide a picture of a student’s strengths as FFT or CEM can.
While these data tools can be very powerful, their value depends entirely on how schools choose to use them. Too often, schools invest time in gathering the data but do not use it as effectively as they could. The best practice I have seen involves sharing results with teachers, students, and parents, and providing training so that everyone understands how to interpret and apply the data. For example, in my previous school in the UK, student targets were linked to value-added measures from CAT4, and regular sessions were held for staff, parents, and students to make sense of the results.
In some international contexts, however, schools are more cautious about sharing these results. Leadership teams sometimes worry that showing likely grades (such as a C or D) could be discouraging or might lead to parents considering other schools. There is also a trend towards comparing results with global averages rather than individual student benchmarks. Whilst easy to explain, this can be misleading. If a class has a lower average ability, comparing them against a global average that assumes a much higher starting point can create unrealistic expectations. In these cases, helping students achieve a C grade, where their predicted outcome was a D, is still an excellent outcome.
