Fischer Family Trust (FFT) for Key Stage 1

Schools and academies with KS1 pupils are now able to access end of KS1 estimates from the Fischer Family Trust (FFT), based on EYFSP outcomes, for their Year 1 and 2 pupils, in the "Development" area of the FFTLive website. 


Analyses providing estimates for Key Stage 1 (KS1) attainment using Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP) data were piloted in 2010 and, following positive feedback, made available to all schools and LAs in July 2011.



The pilot examined the relationship between EYFSP and KS1 outcomes. The following charts show the average KS1 level achieved for two combinations:


EYFSP Communications, Language and Literacy (CLL) -> KS1 Reading Level


EYFSP Problem Solving, Reasoning and Numeracy (MAT) -> KS1 Mathematics Level


There is a consistent relationship between EYFSP scores and their ‘equivalent’ at KS1. Please note that by using the term ‘equivalent’ we are not implying that the EYFSP and KS1 outcomes are assessing the same set learning competencies and skills – merely that there is a consistent relationship between EYFSP assessments and KS1 attainment levels.


If we look, for example, at the range of outcomes in KS1 mathematics for pupils with MAT_AOL scores between 18 and 22, we find:


 Mean KS1 Mathematics Level is 2.62 (i.e. slightly above level 2B)


13% of pupils attained level 3


4% of pupils attained level 1


This reminds us that overall (estimated) levels can mask the range of outcomes for pupils with similar prior-attainment score.


A statistical method for looking at the strength of the relationship between inputs (EYFSP prior attainment) and outcomes (KS1attainment) is called correlation. In broad terms, a correlation of 0 (zero) implies that there is no relationship and a correlation of 1 implies that there is a ‘perfect’ relationship i.e. the same input always results in the same output. In most education research, a correlation of 0.7 or higher is taken to mean that the relationship is sufficiently strong for further analysis. Correlations of 0.8 or above are considered to be high.



Overall, the FFT investigations showed that:


the relationship between EYFSP assessments and KS1 outcomes were sufficiently good to warrant the development of models for analysis of value-added and calculation of estimates;


simplistic models, such as those using a single EYFSP overall or individual element provided lower levels of accuracy and were not felt to be sufficiently reliable




More information from 


http://csapps.norfolk.gov.uk/csshared/ecourier2/fileoutput.asp?id=11608

Fischer Family Trust (FFT)

This charitable organisation produces valuable information which benchmarks standards and progress measures for school. Details on these reports are available at: http://www.fischertrust.org/


FFT provide a number of values called Type A, Type B and Type D to help schools estimate what
their students might achieve.


These are based on considering what students have attained in past examinations.


• Type A: based on prior attainment (including marks where available, subject differences and teacher
assessments), gender and month of birth


• Type B: as Type A, but adjusted for the school’s context including FSM and geodemographic factors


• Type D: as Type B, but adjusted for the progress  made by students in schools at the 25th
percentile for value added (i.e. the top quarter of schools with similar contexts)


The FFT ‘D’ value is often suggested as the starting pointfor setting targets as it provides a
level of challenge and aspiration based on the schools context.


However, for some schools in challenging contexts, the FFT ‘D’ value may not be sufficient to
raise the school above the expected national thresholds and the context may act as a limiting
factor to the target set.


FFT Live is available at www.fftlive.org . To see how FFT Live can help your school, login for free with the username 9994002X (Secondary) or 9992004X(Primary). The password for both accounts is ANON.

The school improvement cycle and target setting

1. How well are we doing? 


Involves assembling and analysing evidence of:


• pupil performance  and 


• contributory factors -most notably teaching, leadership and management


2. How much better should we aim to achieve and how do we compare with similar schools?


Information on pupil performance in other similar schools, particularly those schools
achieving the best results



3. What must we change to achieve this?


This is where schools determine their priorities for the year ahead and set themselves realistic and challenging targets for improvement. It is important for schools to involve all staff in the
target-setting process. It helps them to own the targets and to accept responsibility for achieving them.



4. Planning for improvement and what actions will we take?


The closer development plans get to the work of children in classrooms, the greater the
impact on achievement.



Implementation and review - Taking action and reviewing progress


If pupil achievement is to rise, implementation of the plan needs to influence classroom practice and improve the quality of teaching and learning.



it is vital that schools: monitor the action being taken against their plans and evaluate the impact of that action on pupil progress and achievement



National comparative data is  available through RAISEonline and Fischer Family Trust (FFT)
which provide details of the range of outcomes pupils have achieved so far given their various starting points and circumstances.


http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/pdf/school_performance_data2.pdf