Sue Hackman Lancashire Governors May 2013 How do governors judge the impact of the pupil premium?

Carefully!

Ofsted see the PP as a governor issue ‘The governing body ensures that funds generated by the pupil premium are used to provide additional support, particularly in literacy.’ ‘Governors work closely with the school’s leaders, supporting and challenging them. Additional funds are used wisely to help individual pupils.’ ‘Governors take a close interest in the use of the pupil premium and challenge the headteacher to show how it is working.’

Ofsted see the PP as a governor issue ‘ The governing body does not check the impact of the additional funding provided to tackle under-achievement.’ ‘Members of the governing body are not clear enough about their roles and responsibilities to enable them to effectively challenge leaders about pupil progress.’ ‘Governors have not challenged senior leaders strongly enough about why some pupils do not make better progress.’ ‘Governors have failed to ensure that the additional money received from the government to support pupils eligible for FSMs is spent on helping them.’

Summary of Ofsted’s main criticisms Governors don’t get enough information to launch a challenge. Sometimes they don’t get the information because there is no information! They sometimes get the information but don’t know what can be expected of the most disadvantaged pupils. The money is being spent in ways that may or may not raise standards – who knows? The money is being spent in ways that cannot easily be monitored. Governors don’t feel confident or empowered to make the challenge.

Specifically…. Only 1 in 10 say that the PP has changed what they do Many say they are using the fund to maintain provision Schools with smaller numbers tend to bundle the money in with the rest 3 in 10 schools are using it to buy TAs and 1 in 10 to fund a teacher A third were paying for new curriculum opportunities Many schools were hard pressed to say how they were spending it

KS2 English FSM pupils

KS2 Maths FSM pupils

Narrowing the gap between FSM pupils and others

Four hard measures of success 1. Are we raising standards among the PP pupils? 2. Are we narrowing the gap between PP pupils and the rest? 3. Are we improving progress among PP pupils? 4. Do we compare well on these measures against other schools this year?

Rough national benchmarks (KS2) KS2 English 85% non-FSM 67% FSM Gap is 18% KS2 Maths 83% non-FSM 67% FSM Gap is 16%

Rough national benchmarks (KS2) Annual progress in closing gaps Nationally, we are closing gaps at the rate of just under 1% a year. Aim for 1+% Annual improvement among FSM children Nationally, the improvement varies between 1-3% each year in Maths, and 1-2% in English. Aim for 1.75+%

Rough national benchmarks (KS4) 5 A-C inc EM 58.8% non-FSM 36.3% FSM Gap is 26.3% Annual progress in closing gaps 0.33% Annual improvement among FSM children 3.3% a year (5 year average)

Look on the Ofsted site for your FSM data

Indicators that you are doing it right 1. There is a simple account of how the money is being spent. 2. It is being spent on things that are known to work. 3. The teachers know who the PP pupils are. 4. The school has analysed the pattern of results among PP pupils. 5. The school has a SMART credible plan to close the gap. 6. There is a way of measuring whether the plan is working.

Interim (proxy) measures Termly progress measures Behaviour Attendance Teacher perceptions Observation Checks against the plan Questionnaires/focus groups

Study in advance: the data the plan account of expenditure A dipstick day (prep)

Check your information against national norms and evidence Observation of catch-up Observation of target pupils in a lesson Focus group with 5 or 6 PP pupils on the help they are getting Sample the workbooks of some other PP pupils Talk to one or two parents of beneficiaries Review of progress with leadership A dipstick day (on the day)

What works?

One-to-one tuition

Some really good news about one- to-one tuition (but based on small sample group) ReadingWritingMathematics Pupils in receipt of tuition Pupils not in receipt of tuition Pupils in receipt of tuition Pupils not in receipt of tuition Pupils in receipt of tuition Pupils not in receipt of tuition Non CiC 83.8%79.5%85.1%80.2%88.0%81.5% CiC 83.3%76.8%100%70.5%90.5%74.3%

What works? Parent-child interaction

What works? Tracking and tacking

What works? High expectations

What works? Good quality of teaching

What have other schools done which has worked for them?

Narrowing the Gap in the Performance of Schools What have other schools done that worked? Recruited staff from the local community

Narrowing the Gap in the Performance of Schools What have other schools done that worked? Got in local heroes

Narrowing the Gap in the Performance of Schools What have other schools done that worked? Introduced a strong praise, reward and incentives strategy

Narrowing the Gap in the Performance of Schools What have other schools done that worked? Established fair, tough, respectful discipline

Narrowing the Gap in the Performance of Schools What have other schools done that worked? Provided experiences they won’t get anywhere else

Narrowing the Gap in the Performance of Schools What have other schools done that worked? Identified and worked with opinion-leading pupils

Narrowing the Gap in the Performance of Schools What have other schools done that worked? Taught the conventions of language and behaviour

Narrowing the Gap in the Performance of Schools The Extra Mile

For future consideration… Use the Education Endowment Fund

Thank you!