Effective use of the Pupil and Service Premium Isle of Wight Glyn - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Effective use of the Pupil and Service Premium

Isle of Wight

Glyn Wright April 2015

Presentation

• A brief overview of Pupil Premium funding/sports

funding/Year 7 Catch up funding

• Pupil Premium Plus for CiC
• Why the money has been given
• Training IOW schools/governors have had so far
• What should be on the school websites
• What is on the IOW schools websites currently
• Questions members can be asking of schools

The odds of FSM pupils achieving are three times less than the rest of the cohort from early years through to university

13% of the children in the Isle of Wight live in poverty

Pupil Premium 15/16 Update

• Pupil Premium for FSM:

– Primary - £1,320 (+£23) – Secondary - £935 (+£23)

• Pupil Premium (Plus) for CiC - £1,900 BUT the

responsibility of head of Virtual School to decide spend. In the Isle of Wight £300 is being top sliced for central developments

• Pupil Premium (Plus) for Adopted children and those under

a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) or Residential Order (RO) -

£1,900

• Service Children Premium - £300 but increased to Ever 5
• Primary Sports F
• Secondary – Year 7 Catch Up funding of £500 for children

not reaching Level 4 in English and Maths

Children attracting extra funding

• 4399 FSM children - £5,074,795
• ? Looked After Children - ?
• 75 Post Looked After Children - £142,500
• 103 Service Children - £30,900

DfE - Accountability

• The government believes that head teachers and school

leaders should decide how to use the pupil premium. They are held accountable for the decisions they make through:

– the performance tables which show the performance of disadvantaged pupils compared with their peers – the Ofsted inspection framework, under which inspectors focus on the attainment of pupil groups, and in particular those who attract the pupil premium – the reports for parents that schools have to publish online

• Schools decide how to use the funding, as they are

best placed to assess what additional provision their pupils need.

Displaying the information on the website

• How schools present the information in their
• nline statement is a matter for each school.

There is certain information that must be in the report:

– the school’s pupil premium allocation in respect of the current academic year – details of how it is intended that the allocation will be spent – details of how the previous academic year’s allocation was spent – the impact of this expenditure on the educational attainment of those pupils at the school, in respect

• f whom grant funding was allocated.

Quick survey of 15 IOW schools websites- Pupil Premium March 2014

• 15 schools
• 4 no information on website
• 2 with out of date information
• 9 with information – 2 of which were excellent

Survey of all Isle of Wight Schools March 2015

• Most schools (42/50) mentioned Service and CiC… But it really is
• nly a “mention”, usually as part of the general PP description.
• Some (15) schools have removed their 2013-14 data
• Some schools have good 2013-14 data but have not tackled the

current year (some only give a simple list of interventions)

• 33 schools list the interventions they have in place for 14/15 but only

20 schools outline what the intended impact is

• Only 28/41 primary schools state what they are doing with Sports

Premium

• Only 3 of secondary schools state what they are doing with Year 7

Catch Up money

• Most schools do not have a clear “Pupil Premium” link on their

Home page.

• Only 43 schools have a SEND statement
• PSHE statements are rare although many schools have clear SRE

and Nutrition policies posted

Sutton Trust Research 2013

• 1. Effective Feedback ££ +8mths
• 2. Metacognition and self regulation ££ +8mths
• 3. Peer tutoring ££££ + 6 mths
• 4. Early Years interventions £££££ +6mths
• 5. 1:1 ££££ + 5mths
• 6. Homework (secondary) £££ + 5mths
• 7. Collaborative learning £ + 5 mths
• 8. Phonics £ +4mths
• 9. Small group tuition £££ +4mths

10.Behaviour interventions £££ +4 mths 11.Digital technology ££££ + 4 mths 12.Social and emotional learning £ + 4mths 13.Parental involvement £££ + 3mths

EXAMPLE STRATEGIES TO CLOSE ATTAINMENT GAPS

Targeted strategies for FSM pupils might include…

• Incentives and targeting of extended services and parental

support

• Subsidising school trips and other learning resources
• Additional residential and summer camps
• Interventions to manage key transitions between stages /schools
• Dedicated senior leadership champion

Targeted strategies for under-achieving pupils might include…

• Early intervention and targeted learning interventions
• One-to-one support and other ‘catch-up’ provision
• Rigorous monitoring and evaluation of impact of targeted

interventions

• Extended services and multi-agency support
• Targeted parental engagements
• In-school dedicated pastoral and wellbeing support and outreach
• Developing confidence and self-esteem through pupil voice,

empowering student mentors, sport, music, or other programmes such as SEAL

TARGETED STRATEGIES FOR PUPILS ELIGIBLE FOR FSM …which specifically benefit FSM pupils STRATEGIES FOR UNDER- PERFORMING PUPILS …which benefit FSM and

• ther under-achieving pupils

Whole school strategies might include…

• Quality teaching and learning, consistent across the school,

supported by strong CPD culture, observation/moderation and coaching

• Engaging and relevant curriculum, personalised to pupil needs
• Pupil level tracking, assessment and monitoring
• Quality assessment
• Effective reward, behaviour and attendance policies
• Inclusive and positive school culture
• Effective senior leadership team, focused on PP agenda

WHOLE SCHOOL STRATEGIES ...which benefit all pupils

Source: abridged from Rea and Hill , 2011, Does School-to-School Support close the gap? National College for School Leadership

John Dunford’s Pupil Premium Reviews

• Dr John Dunford’s Review document 2014
• This new guide has been developed by the Teaching Schools Council

working with Sir John Dunford, National Pupil Premium Champion.

• It has been developed for system leaders and school leaders
• It provides a rigorous and tested framework which reviewers and

supported schools can use to make the most of a pupil premium review

• It sets out a simple, six-step process for a review, including self-

evaluation by the supported school and the creation of an action plan for the school by the reviewer.

• There are also case studies from a reviewer and three schools that

have previously commissioned reviews.

Evidence from Ofsted (Jan 2013) : successful approaches

• PP funding ring-fenced to spend on target group
• Maintained high expectations of target group
• Thoroughly analysed which pupils were under-achieving +

why

• Used evidence to allocate funding to big-impact strategies
• High quality teaching, not interventions to compensate for

poor teaching

• Used achievement data to check interventions effective and

made adjustments where necessary

• Highly trained support staff
• Senior leader with oversight of how PP funding is being spent
• Teachers know which pupils eligible for PP
• Able to demonstrate impact
• Involve governors

Factors considered by inspectors

• Quality of the school’s analysis of the performance

and needs of PP pupils

• School rationale for spending PP funding
• Appropriateness and level of challenge of school’s

success criteria

• Robustness of monitoring and evaluation
• Level of involvement of governors
• Level of involvement of pupils, parents and carers
• Impact on narrowing the gap

What inspectors are looking for

• Before the inspection, RAISE Online is studied for

evidence on gaps: – How well did FSM pupils attain last year in comparison to other pupils in the school and nationally? – How much progress did FSM pupils make last year compared to other pupils in the school and nationally? – How well have FSM pupils been performing over time? Is attainment rising? Is the gap narrowing?

• PP pupil tracking by inspector
• Discussions with PP pupils, parents, staff and governors
• Study of effectiveness of PP spending strategies
• Study of effectiveness of leadership in monitoring and

evaluation

• Governor involvement

The evidence

• Seeking out excellent practice in other schools

http://apps.nationalcollege.org.uk/closing_the_gap/ind ex.cfm

• Using the Education Endowment Foundation toolkit

http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/toolkit/

• Using conclusions from Ofsted surveys

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupil-premium- how-schools-are-spending-funding-successfully- maximise-achievement

• http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/unseen-children-

access-and-achievement-20-years

18