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


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

Number of PPG received
Total number on roll127
Total eligible for PPG
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





Total amount of PPG received
Nature of support
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 support7 students
Curriculum focus
i-Pads were brought for use in year 7 lessons13 PPG students are in year 7
Numeracy after school clubAttended by 4 PPG students
Literacy focus for identified year 7 studentsAttended by 1 PPG student

DISTAR Interventions (daily) attended by 13 PPG students over the week

Pastoral support managerCurrently dealing with 27 PPG students
Measuring impact of PPG spending review
Monitored by teachers in class, through: IEP targets, academic progress, emotional and social progressReview Termly
Use of classroom monitor to assess overall progress in subjectsReview Termly by SLT
Improved attendanceReview Termly by SLT
Previous performance of disadvantaged students
Previous performance of disadvantaged students

% of students making expected progress in English
100%98.5% 99%
% of students making expected progress in Maths97%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.


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