1. The Pupil Premium How schools are spending the funding effectively to maximise achievement Stoke-on-Trent Governors Tuesday 14 January 2014 Angela Westington Senior HMI

2. Purpose of session  To raise governors’ awareness of educational outcomes in Stoke-on-Trent, especially of pupils eligible for Pupil Premium  To update governors on Ofsted’s surveys on how schools have been using the Pupil Premium  To raise governors’ awareness of LA and school Raise on Line and DfE LA interactive tool (LAIT)

5. West Midlands: Primary FSM quintiles FSM Quintiles Low % High %

6. Educational outcomes in Stoke-on-Trent 2013 EYFS:  52% of children reached good level of development by end of Reception compared to 50% in West Midlands and 52% nationally.  60% of children reached expected point of development in early reading compared to 60% in region and 61% nationally. But, inequality gap is highest in region and much higher than nationally.

7. Year 1 phonic check 2013 LA RoL

8. Year 1 phonic check DfE LAIT

9. Key Stage 1 outcomes 2013 LA RoL

10. Gap between FSM and non FSM at age 7 Stoke-on-Trent

11. Key Stage 2 outcomes 2013 LA RoL

12. Gap between FSM and non FSM at age 11 in Stoke-on-Trent

14. Percentage of students gaining 5+ A*C GCSEs including English and mathematics or equivalent

15. Outcomes at 16 for students in receipt of FSM

16. Performance of WM local authorities in secondary mathematics Trends over time Analysis completed December 2013

19. Strengths in mathematics  Where students consistently achieve well in mathematics compared with students in maintained schools in England:  Birmingham  Worcestershire  Warwickshire  Where students now achieve in line with students in maintained schools in England, and are improving:  Solihull  Wolverhampton

20. Areas of concern  Where students have in the past achieved in line with students in maintained schools in England, but are now declining:  Shropshire  Herefordshire  Staffordshire

21. Weaknesses in mathematics  Where students consistently underachieve compared with students in maintained schools in England:  Coventry (gap narrowing, improving)  Dudley (gap widening, declining)  Sandwell (gap narrowing, improving)  Stoke on Trent (gap narrowing, improving)  Telford and Wrekin (inconsistent)  Walsall (gap narrowing, improving)

22. 2012/2013

23. Current position in WM secondary schools

24. Strong core Birmingham Solihull Warwickshire Wolverhampton Worcestershire Ma better than En Shropshire

25. Pupil Premium

26. The Pupil Premium: two Ofsted surveys  In September 2012, Ofsted published a report based on the views of 262 school leaders gathered through inspections and telephone interview questionnaires conducted by Her Majesty’s Inspectors.  In the autumn term 2012, Ofsted visited 68 primary and secondary schools to see how effectively the schools were spending the funding to maximise achievement. A good practice report was published 11 February 2013.

27. Some key findings from our September report  School leaders commonly said that they were using the funding to maintain or enhance existing provision rather than to put in place new initiatives.  Schools did not routinely disaggregate the Pupil Premium funding from their main budget, especially when receiving smaller amounts.  In some schools it was clear to inspectors that the spending was not all focused on the needs of the specific groups for whom it was intended.  Inspectors saw little evidence of a strong focus on the Pupil Premium by governors or management committees.

28. What were schools spending the Pupil Premium on? Based on multiple answers provided by 119 school leaders responding to the telephone survey and 142 school leaders responding to additional questions at inspection.

29. Characteristics of successful approaches

30. Successful approaches (September survey) – schools…  ring-fenced the funding for the target group  never confused eligibility for the Pupil Premium with low ability, but focused on supporting disadvantaged pupils to achieve the highest levels  Analysed thoroughly which pupils were underachieving and why  drew on research evidence and their own and others’ experience to allocate the funding to the activities that were most likely to have an impact on achievement  understood the importance of ensuring that all day-to-day teaching met the needs of each student, rather than relying on interventions to compensate for teaching that is less than good  used achievement data frequently to check whether interventions or techniques were working and made adjustments accordingly  made sure that support staff (particularly TAs) were highly trained and understood their role in helping pupils to achieve  ensured that a designated senior leader had a clear overview of how the funding was being allocated and the difference it was making to the outcomes for pupils

31.  all teachers knew which pupils were eligible for the Pupil Premium and took responsibility for accelerating their progress  discussions about pupils eligible for the Pupil Premium included in performance management meetings  governors fully involved in the decision making and evaluation process  schools could demonstrate the impact of each aspect of their spending on the outcomes for pupils, through careful monitoring and evaluation. Successful approaches continued..

32. Characteristics of less successful approaches

33. Where schools were less successful in spending the funding, they tended to…..  lack clarity about the intended impact of the spending  spend the funding indiscriminately on teaching assistants, with little impact  not monitor the quality and impact of interventions well enough  not have a good performance management system for support staff  not have a clear audit trail for where the funding had been spent  focus on pupils attaining the nationally expected level at the end of the key stage but did not to go beyond these expectations, so some more-able eligible pupils underachieved.  plan their Pupil Premium spending in isolation to their other planning; for example, it was not part of the school development plan  compare their performance to local rather than national data, which suppressed expectations if they were in a low-performing local authority  compare the performance of their pupils who were eligible for free school meals with other eligible pupils nationally, rather than all pupils, again lowering expectations

34.  did not focus their pastoral work on outcomes for pupils and did not have any evidence to show whether the work had or had not been effective  did not have governors involved in making decisions about the Pupil Premium, or challenging the way in which it was allocated. Where schools were less successful in spending the funding, they...

35. Case studies: some examples of approaches that had a good impact on outcomes for pupils

36. Pupil Premium | 36 A coherent strategy from the outset  A named governor was nominated to have an oversight of the Pupil Premium and the full governing body was involved in making decisions about spending.  Senior leaders and governors wrote a policy for spending the Pupil Premium, which laid out the principles and explained how the impact of the spending would be evaluated. The finance manager was closely involved in tracking the allocation and could therefore always account clearly for each part of the spending.  The school set very clear success criteria for each action they took. Where they employed staff they knew exactly what they aimed to achieve from this.

37. Add presentation title to master slide | 37 Identifying the levers for improvement  The aims of specific interventions such as one to one tuition and small group work were clearly set, using data - the school defined how much the intervention course was expected to accelerate each pupil’s progress, and how this progress should continue for the rest of the year.  Under the leadership of an assistant headteacher appointed especially for this purpose, the school closely analysed both national research and local knowledge about what makes a difference in narrowing the attainment gap.

38. Pupil Premium | 38 Identifying the levers for improvement  It drew on this information to focus its strategy on the ten activities that it believes make the biggest difference: o Data tracking that identifies the gaps o High profile of pupils eligible for free school meals o Vertical tutoring o Effective teaching and learning o Strong careers information, advice and guidance o Literacy support o Targeted support o Engagement and enjoyment o Good attendance o Good facilities for supported self-study

39. Pupil Premium | 39 Ensuring that teaching assistants help to improve achievement  The headteacher read the Sutton Trust report, which caused him to reflect on the role of teaching assistants in the school.  He concluded that although the assistants were providing valuable emotional support to many pupils, and were very good at keeping pupils on task, they were not always being maximised to support learning.

40. Add presentation title to master slide | 40  The headteacher decided to extend the assistants’ hours, using a small amount of Pupil Premium funding. This allows them to review the day’s learning with teachers, help to identify gaps in pupils’ knowledge and understanding and to be well informed about the learning planned for the next day.  The headteacher also audited their skills and put in place a range of individualised training, according to need. Ensuring that teaching assistants help to improve achievement

41. Pupil Premium | 41 Helping more-able pupils to reach their potential  The school recognised that just aiming for pupils to reach ‘age related expectations’ was not aspirational enough, particularly for some of the more-able pupils. The school carefully identified the factors that were preventing pupils from accelerated progress and used Pupil Premium funding to help to remove these barriers. For example:  one-to-one support from a learning mentor was specifically focused on a small group of able pupils who lacked confidence or social skills to build their self-esteem  an additional teaching group was established to extend the science skills of more-able pupils.  speech and language programmes were targeted to pupils whose progress was being hampered by weak oracy skills, despite their obvious understanding of their learning.

42. Pupil Premium | 42 Focusing on attendance  The school identified that for a small number of pupils, poor attendance was contributing significantly to their underachievement.  The school decided to appoint a parent support adviser and to ensure that this person was well qualified and experienced. Using Pupil Premium funding, they managed to appoint a former education welfare officer. This member of staff has a caseload of about 20 pupils at any one time, and works with pupils and their parents to solve various issues that are preventing the pupils from attending.  In addition, the school has used the funding to set up a ‘welcome to school’ room, staffed by two teaching assistants, as a halfway house for pupils who are finding it difficult to return to school full time after long term absence or sporadic attendance.

43. Pupil Premium | 43 A fully involved governing body  A specific committee took on the responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the funding.  They know how much of the money has been spent, and on what. Governors from this committee take part in learning walks to see the impact of specific aspects of spending, as well as scrutinising data on the attainment of eligible pupils.  Pupil Premium funding is also a regular standing item at the finance committee’s meetings.  Information about the school’s spending is published on the school’s website, and governors check that this is complete and accurate.

44. Pupil Premium | 44 Focused, frequent monitoring and evaluation  The achievement of pupils who attract Pupil Premium funding is carefully tracked so senior leaders know where there are gaps in achievement.  Teachers check and report on the progress of this group of pupils through regular discussions in teams and with senior leaders about pupils’ achievement.  The way in which eligible pupils are achieving is a part of performance management discussions for all staff.  Clear reports to governors from the headteacher mean governors have an accurate understanding of the difference that the school’s actions are making to pupils who attract Pupil Premium funding.  Governors ask well-focused questions about what the evaluation is showing and what needs to be done differently.

45. What will inspectors be looking for?

46. Before the inspection inspectors must use all available evidence to develop an initial picture of the school’s context and performance. The categorisation of pupils eligible for FSM changed in 2012. Pupils are classed as FSM if they have been eligible for and claiming FSM at any time in the last 6 years. This will include: Data from RaiseOnline Previous report Parent View Information available on the school’s website

47. How well did FSM pupils attain last year in comparison to other pupils in the school and nationally?

48. How much progress did FSM pupils make last year compared to other pupils in the school and against the national picture?

49. How well have FSM pupils been performing over time? Is attainment rising? Is the attainment gap narrowing?

50. When judging achievement inspectors must take account of the learning and progress across year groups of different groups of pupils currently on the roll of the school  Evidence gathered by inspectors during the course of the inspection may include:  the school’s own records of pupils’ progress, including the progress of pupils who attend off-site alternative provision for all or part of the week, and the progress of pupils for whom the pupil premium or the Year 7 literacy and numeracy catch-up premium provide support (School inspection handbook, p31)  They consider Difference in achievement between those for whom the pupil premium provides support and other pupils in the school, including:  gaps in attainment, in particular in English and mathematics  differences in progress from similar starting points.  Gaps in attainment must include the difference between the average points scores in each of English and mathematics in national assessments at the end of Key Stage 2, and at GCSE at the end of Key Stage 4, as explained in Subsidiary guidance. (School Inspection handbook, p33)

51. Inspectors must examine the impact of leaders at all levels, including governors, and evaluate how efficiently and effectively the school is managed.  the effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation and the extent to which it is shared with governors – this includes monitoring and evaluation of:  the quality of teaching and the achievement and progress of all groups of pupils, including those for those for whom the pupil premium provides support, relative to other schools nationally (School inspection handbook, p46)  Inspectors should also consider how well governors:  use the pupil premium and other resources to overcome barriers to learning, including reading, writing and mathematics. (School inspection handbook, p49)

52. The Pupil Premium: analysis and challenge tools for schools  This booklet accompanies Ofsted’s Pupil Premium report (February 2013).  It contains a series of tools that schools can use to help them to analyse where there are gaps in achievement between pupils who are eligible for the Pupil Premium and those who are not, and to plan the action they need to take. http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupil-premium-analysis-and- challenge-tools-for-schools

53. The Pupil Premium: analysis and challenge tools for schools

55. Angela Westington, Senior HMI angela.westington@ofsted.gov.uk