Pupil Premium
Click here for the Pupil Premium Funding Report 2017 – 2018
The Government believes that the Pupil Premium, which is additional to main school funding, is the best way to address the current underlying inequalities between children eligible for free school meals (FSM) and their wealthier peers by ensuring that funding to tackle disadvantage reaches the students who need it most.
In most cases the Pupil Premium is allocated to schools and is clearly identifiable. Schools are free to spend the Pupil Premium as they see fit. However, we are accountable as to how the funding has been used to support students and low income families.
Funding Allocation for 2015/2016
Pupil premium received Number on roll 128
Eligible for PPG 68
Amount received per pupil £935
Amount received for PPG £57,035
Amount received PPG + £13,300
Amount received for service pupils £300
Total amount for 2015/16 £70,635
Nature of support Expenditure
Literacy support manager – An M-grade TA with specialist literacy training and targeted intervention time (half timetable)
Pastoral support manager – An M-grade TA off timetable to support emotional needs, and lead SEAL interventions
Behaviour support manager - An M-grade TA off timetable to lead behaviour interventions
SEAL sessions – 17 PPG pupils
Subsidised residential trips – 15 PPG pupils; 1 pupil had extra trip paid in full
After school club support/ transport – 34 PPG pupils; 6 PPG pupils had free taxi Transition support 2 PPG pupils
Curriculum focus iPADS for use in year 7 numeracy – 14 PPG pupils
Free literacy and numeracy after school clubs – 7 PPG pupils
Distar literacy interventions – 39 PPG pupils
Targeted support from pastoral manager – 15 PPG pupils
Life books for use in SEAL – 17 PPG pupils
iPAD for use at home – 1 PPG pupil
Laptops to keep and use in school for extended writing (5 bought) – 2 PPG pupils
Literacy and numeracy catch up funding 2015-2016
Year 7 Literacy and Numeracy catch up funding
2015-2016 Crowdys Hill school received: £11,000
Literacy Catch Up
Employing a teaching assistant for specific individualised literacy interventions £9,750
Numeracy Catch Up
Numeracy interventions, targeted for individuals weekly £390
Homework booklets for use with year 7 and 8 £780
Literacy and Numeracy catch up funding 2014-2015
Year 7 Literacy and Numeracy catch up funding
2014-2015 Crowdys Hill school received: £11,000
Numeracy Catch Up
Catch up text books for use with year 7 and 8 £3400
Year 7 numeracy catch up books £128.65
Year 7 rapid maths homework books £65
20 IPADS for use in maths lessons plus maths apps £6000
Impact data on separate page, on website.
Impact actions
ACTION
The use of Ipads has improved the engagement of students in class, and this is shown by the year 7 data for this school year, and last school year. Extend the use of Ipads for year 8 classes
Focus on the year 7 students that enter at 1C or below, and target interventions, such as Numicon, and problem-solving to reduce the gap.
Focus on year 8 students, for 2015-2016, in particular their Using and Applying ability, and homework booklets
Reasons for choosing these interventions: Advice and research from
Literacy and numeracy catch-up strategies November 2012, DfE.
Literacy interventions in secondary schools
• Secondary school age pupils’ literacy problems can be effectively targeted by direct, explicit and systematic fluency, vocabulary and comprehension instruction in one-to-one (Houge et al., 2008); Although one-to-one literacy programmes for this age group have not been widely employed, three key features of successful programmes have been identified: monitoring and evaluation of the quality of construction; planning and structuring of the tutoring session; and tutor training (Houge et al., 2008);
• Fluency is a critical element for many older pupils with reading difficulties, since it is necessary for comprehension; however, it can be hard to influence through intervention. Nevertheless, evaluations of fluency interventions have reported moderate to large effect sizes on speed of reading (although improved comprehension did not always result from improved fluency) (Wexler et al., 2007);
• Vocabulary as well as fluency deficits are hard to remediate in older readers: interventions focusing on these elements of reading may also need to encourage pupils to increase the amount and range of their personal reading support their development (Tunmer, 2008);
For these reasons we chose to use Toe-by-toe for targeted interventions
• Brooks (2007) noted that there is much less evidence on reading interventions at secondary level, and none on writing interventions. He also identified a range of effective reading interventions used in secondary schools in the UK, concluding that this represents evidence of “useful to remarkable effectiveness” for some schemes; and, Slavin et al. (2008) conducted a systematic review of methods of improving reading in middle and high school pupils (11-18 year olds) in the US. They concluded that programmes designed to change daily teaching practices and which had cooperative learning at their core were the most effective.
The English department are currently revising their reading schemes and reading sessions
Literacy interventions: Findings from research
Brooks (2007) concluded overall that:
• Large-scale schemes, though expensive, can give good value for money;
• Where reading partners are available and can be given appropriate training and support, partnership approaches can be very effective;
• Success with some pupils with the most severe problems is elusive, and this reinforces the need for skilled, intensive, one-to-one intervention for these pupils;
We are targeting pupils with Toe-by-toe programme for at least two terms
• Interventions longer than one term may produce proportionally further benefits but the gains need to be carefully monitored
Numeracy Interventions
Slavin et al. (2009) found that the most successful mathematics programmes focused on changing daily teaching practices, particularly the use of cooperative learning methods, classroom management, and motivation programmes. The most successful mathematics programmes encouraged pupil interaction.
Numeracy interventions in primary schools
• The evidence base on numeracy intervention is patchy, and less developed than the evidence base on literacy interventions, in particular in terms of comparing levels of improvement between different mathematics intervention schemes Dowker (2009);
• Interventions can be more effective if introduced at an early stage: this can help to reduce ‘mathematics anxiety’ (Dowker, 2004, 2009); We identify pupils in September, whom we feel may be anxious about maths, and focus on ensuring enjoyment and engagement in lessons
• Low attainers in mathematics benefit from detailed assessment of their learning needs, and interventions work best when they are targeted on an individual child’s weakness (Dowker, 2004); Maths teachers pass on pupil details to the interventions lead, and suggest areas of focus
• As with literacy, cooperative learning, paired work and group collaboration have been found to have positive effects for low attainers (Slavin and Lake, 2008; Dowker, 2004); and,
• Numbers Count in the UK clearly has a short-term impact on individual pupils, however, it is relatively expensive, and Torgerson et al.’s (2011) evaluation was unable to derive strong conclusions of the medium-term impact of ECC and NC on pupils and schools, although it was considered to be well designed and received strong support from participating schools. This was looked into by the maths department and felt that it was too prescriptive for our pupils at year 7, it may be more useful for our current year 9 pupils.
Numeracy interventions in secondary schools
• There is little evidence on numeracy interventions for secondary school pupils; and, a US study found that pupils using ‘standards-based mathematics programmes’ in elementary and middle schools significantly outperformed their matched peers from schools using a mix of traditional programmes and curricular (Riordan and Noyce, 2001). We have found that a mixture of strategies have worked with our pupils. Our curriculum has an emphasis on problem-solving and mental maths.
Generic strategies which are beneficial for low attainers
• Early intervention; monitoring of pupils’ progress; tailoring teaching to the appropriate needs of individual pupils; coaching teachers/teaching assistants in specific teaching strategies such as cooperative learning; cognitive approaches, based on mental processes; one-to-one tuition; peer-to-peer support; aspects of the home-school relationship; and study support.
Numeracy interventions: findings from research
The quality of teaching assistants’ interventions for pupils with mathematical difficulty is positively impacted by training; We have a trained maths specialist TA who leads maths interventions.
• Peer tuition and group collaboration approaches (e.g. older pupils teaching younger pupils; more able classmates teaching less able classmates; collaborative learning between pupils of similar abilities) can be effective, but are unlikely to be a complete substitute for adult intervention, particularly for those with more severe needs;
• Training in formal operations (the manipulation of symbols and abstractions) can positively impact on the mathematical development of older children and adolescents;
• Training in metacognitive skills has been shown to be effective in some cases, but more research is needed on exactly which aspects of metacognition are important;
Slavin et al. (2009) identified 13 studies of primary mathematics curricula and 40 of secondary mathematics curricula. The curricula included:
• Innovative strategies focusing on problem solving, alternative solutions and conceptual understanding;
• Traditional commercial textbooks; and,
• Back-to-basics textbook emphasising a step-by-step approach.
Overall, they found no evidence to recommend one type of curriculum over another.
Our maths curriculum focuses on problem-solving throughout year 7 onwards. We used funds from last year’s catch up to buy in new text books for maths which are progressive, and have a focus on puzzles and word problems.
For 2015-2016:
Schools will receive £500 for each pupil in year 7 who did not achieve at least level 4 in reading or maths at the end of KS2.
For the year 2013/14 our Pupil Premium income was £48,600
For the year 2013/14 our Pupil Premium plus income was £0
Click here to view our Summary of Pupil Premium Plus 2015/16
Click here to view our Targeting Pupil Premium Recipients 2015/16
Click to view our Pupil Premium Expenditure Autumn Term 2015/16
Click here to view our Pupil Premium 2015/16 Breakdown
Click here to view Pupil Premium English Breakdown 2015
Click here to view Pupil Premium Maths Breakdown 2015
Click here to view Impact data for Year 7 and 8 Students in Mathematics
Please find below for Pupil Premium Data for 2014-2015
Total number on roll | 127 |
Total eligible for PPG | 68 |
Amount of PPG received per student on Free School Meals
Amount of PPG received per student in Care (LAC) Amount of PPG received per student Adopted from Care Amount of PPG received per student with a parent in the Armed Forces | £935
£1900 £1900 £300 |
Total amount of PPG received | £73,080 |
Literacy support manager | M Grade and off timetable for extra sessions |
Pastoral support manager | M grade and off timetable |
SEAL sessions | 16 PPG students |
Subsidised residential | 27 PPG students |
After school club- subsidised/ transport | 16 students accessed extended schools activities including breakfast club, the offer for extended schools changes throughout the year so figures are published retrospectively |
Given initial 1:1 support for transition | 4 students |
Given continued 1:1 support | 7 students |
i-Pads were brought for use in year 7 lessons | 13 PPG students are in year 7 |
Numeracy after school club | Attended by 4 PPG students |
Literacy focus for identified year 7 students | Attended by 1 PPG student
DISTAR Interventions (daily) attended by 13 PPG students over the week |
Pastoral support manager | Currently dealing with 27 PPG students |
Monitored by teachers in class, through: IEP targets, academic progress, emotional and social progress | Review Termly |
Use of classroom monitor to assess overall progress in subjects | Review Termly by SLT |
Improved attendance | Review Termly by SLT |
Previous performance of disadvantaged students | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 |
% of students making expected progress in English | 100% | 98.5% | 99% |
% of students making expected progress in Maths | 97% | 97% | 91% |
* includes data for 1 absent student & 4 students educated at alternative provision (equates to 8%) |
Last year’s spending and impact (2015-2016)
Funding Allocation for 2015/2016
Amount received for PPG £57,035
Amount received PPG + £13,300
Amount received for service pupils £300
Total amount for 2015/16 £70,635
Nature of support Expenditure Impact data for specific spending in 2015-2016
INTERVENTION | Number of PP (non-pp) pupils accessed | Impact data | Comparison to non- pp |
Literacy support manager | 41 (34) | Year 7, 8, and 9. In year 7 PP pupils have made more (+12% gap)expected or above progress in English, than non- pp. | In year 8 and 9, non-pp pupils made more expected or above progress in English than PP pupils (-6% and -9%). |
Pastoral support managerTargeted support | 15 (2) | 93% improved attendance or significantly lowered behavioural incidents. | 50% improved attendance. |
SEAL support sessionsTargeted support | 19 (15) | 100% improved through fewer behavioural incidents; or reduced emotional disturbances. | 93% improved through fewer behavioural incidents; or reduced disturbances |
Behaviour support managerTargeted support | 6 (4) | 83% showed improvement through increased attendance and engagement in lessons. | 75% improved attendance and fewer recorded incidents of disaffection. |
iPADS for year 7 | 14 (8) | Increased engagement in lessons, no incidents of disruption recorded in year 7 for all but one pupil (pp). | |
After school clubs | 34 (34) | Improved social skills and friendships. Developed new skills and independence. | |
Residential trip subsidy | 15 (23) | Year 7, 8 and 10 trips. Pupils accessed all activities, and developed life skills and independence, along with memories that can be shared with their peers. | |
Laptops x5, for targeted PP pupils | Not acquired this year as iPADS used |
Impact of individual funding for pupils eligible for pupil premium plus funding is analysed separately and available to the borough.
Proposed spending for 2016-2017
We gained good value from investing in our pastoral support manager, and our behavioural support manager, and we intend to continue with these targeted interventions.
Our after school clubs, and subsidies for residential trips are very popular and we believe that whilst the impact of these are difficult to measure accurately, they are valuable to disadvantaged children. They contribute to their life experiences, positive achievements, building resilience, and developing friendships. They expose our children to experiences which may not ever be available to them outside of school. As such we see these subsidies as an effective way to improve their life skills, and build self-esteem, which help to close the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers.
Demand for developing pupils’ emotional literacy continues to increase, for both pupils eligible and not. We have trained staff that deliver targeted support sessions. This will continue to be developed and delivered.
Our literacy support manager has worked hard to research appropriate interventions to suit our pupils. We will continue to fund these interventions as we feel that literacy interventions need to be presented over a long period of time to benefit our pupils. The results improve each year.
Summary
Pupil premium funding for the coming year will be used to continue:
Pastoral Support manager (M grade)
Literacy Support manager (M grade)
Behavioural Support manager (M grade)
SEAL support sessions
Subsidies for residential trips for PP eligible only
Subsidies for after school clubs (including transport for PP eligible only)
Literacy Catch up spending for 2015- 2016
We received £11,000 for literacy and numeracy catch up funding.
Employing a teaching assistant for specific individualised literacy interventions £9,750
Numeracy interventions, targeted for individuals weekly £390
Homework booklets for use with year 7 and 8 £780
Impact data for catch up funding 2015-2016
Funding | Number of PP (non-pp) pupils accessed | Impact data |
Targeted literacy support | 4 (6) | 100% pp pupils increased above expected rate in English. 83% of non-pp pupils increased above expected. |
Targeted numeracy support | 6 (2) | 66% of pp pupils increased above expected in Maths. Neither of the non-pp pupils exceeded expected progress but they did reach their targets. |
Numeracy home work booklets | 26 (22) | Only +1% difference between pp and non-pp pupils reaching their maths targets, all year 7 pupils reached their expected targets; and a noticeable increase in parental engagement in supporting homework. |
Proposed expenditures for current school year, 2016-2017
Predicted Pupil premium for 2016-2017:
Pupil premium primary (4) | £5,280 |
Pupil premium secondary (58) | £53,625 |
Pupil premium plus, secondary (6 SBC, 3 Wilts ) | £17,100 |
Service children | £300 |
Total PrimarySecondary | £5,280£53,925 |
Expected expenditure in secondary school for 2016-2017:
Intervention/ support | Reason/ expected outcomes | Cost |
Literacy support manager- off timetable to support Distar, and other interventions | Evidence from the Education Endowment Foundation suggests that targeted small group and 1:1 interventions for literacy work. We have chosen literacy programmes which have research behind them showing that they are successful for SEN pupils. Success shown through increased reading age progress. | £13,600 |
Pastoral support manager- off timetable to support pupils with emotional and/ or family difficulties; and focus support on LAC. | Many disadvantaged pupils have social and emotional difficulties due to their home life or environmental factors due to low household incomes. Our pastoral manager has helped support many families, from helping them to complete DLA forms (PIP) to taking them to medical appointments and supporting them with external agencies and social services. This support is difficult to quantify but the results show that our most needy pupils are able to access learning and extra-curricular activities, and we have good parental engagement. | £15,600 |
Behaviour support manager- off timetable to support pupils displaying emotional and mental health difficulties, or in need of targeted interventions. | Many disadvantaged pupils have emotional and mental health imbalances at some time during their school life. Our behaviour support manager has years of experience and training in de-escalation techniques, behavioural planning and she knows the needs of our pupils. She is used to provide behavioural interventions, in class support, and developing plans for targeted pupils. Success shown through: increased attendance in lessons; and reduced behavioural incidents in school. | £13,600 |
Increase SEAL support sessions | Social and emotional aspects of learning are used in a targeted programme with identified pupils, many of whom are pupil premium. We have found this to be a supportive and adaptable programme for our pupils, with success shown through: increased attendance; engagement in lessons; and reduced incidents due to anxieties. | £3,000 |
Budget available for residential trip subsidies or after school club transport. | These activities contribute to the life experiences of our pupils, positive achievements, building resilience, and developing friendships. They expose our children to experiences which may not ever be available to them outside of school. As such we see these subsidies as an effective way to improve their life skills, and build self-esteem. | As agreed on individual basis |
Total | £45,800 |
Pupil Premium Plus funding is used on identified individuals on targeted support and administrative support. This information is detailed termly, with impact report, and sent to Swindon’s Virtual Schools Headteacher. Currently 9 with 2 pending. Monies kept by VSH and claimed by school as needed.
Expected expenditure in primary school for 2016- 2017:
Intervention/ support | Reason | Cost |
Training and support for primary staff in communication techniques. | Based on the evidence from EEF. Communication and language approaches emphasise the importance of spoken language and verbal interaction. They are based on the idea that children’s language development benefits from approaches that explicitly support talking, verbal expression, modelling language and reasoning. | £2,652 |
Training primary staff in how to develop children’s self-regulation skills.Children’s self-regulation skills (sometimes referred to as executive function, or learning capability) reflect their ability to manage their own behaviour or learning. | Evidence of success from EEF research. In the early years, efforts to improve self-regulation often seek to improve levels of self-control and reduce impulsivity. Activities typically include supporting children in articulating their plans and learning strategies and reviewing what they have done. A number of approaches use stories or characters to help children remember different learning strategies. It is often easier to observe children’s current self-regulation capabilities when they are playing or interacting with a peer. | £2,652 |
Total | £5,304 |
Proposed expenditure for Literacy catch up funding for 2016-2017:
Expected funding: £9,000
Focus on improving literacy for pupils with English as and Additional Language
Appointed a language specialist to work with small groups and individuals on social skills: £8,000 plus resources
Date this page was last modified: 4 August 2020