Pupil Premium Strategy 2017-18

Pupil premium strategy statement:

1. Summary information School

Montgomery High School

Academic Year

2017/18

Total PP budget

£462,146

Date of most recent PP Review

• Full PP Review April 2015 • Financial Review Completed in July 2017

Total number of pupils

1244

Number of pupils eligible for PP

534

Date for next internal review of this strategy

• January 2018

2. Current attainment (Eligible students 2017-17) Pupils eligible for PP (your school)

Pupils not eligible for PP (national average)

Progress 8 score average

-0.89

TBC (expected January 2018)

Attainment 8 score average

34.43

TBC (expected January 2018)

Progress 8 score in Maths

-1.24

TBC (expected January 2018)

Progress 8 score in English

-1.03

TBC (expected January 2018)

3. Barriers to future attainment (for pupils eligible for PP including high ability) In-school barriers (issues to be addressed in school, such as poor literacy skills) A.

Lower reading age of eligible students

B.

Lower resilience levels of eligible students increasing the number of behaviour incidents

C.

Lower average CAT score of eligible students in each academic year group in comparison to non-eligible students

1

External barriers (issues which also require action outside school, such as low attendance rates) D.

Attendance of students lower than non-eligible students

E.

Engagement of eligible student families at school interventions lower than non-eligible students

4. Outcomes

Desired outcomes and how they will be measured

Success criteria

A.

Achievement difference between eligible students and national non-eligible students to diminish, measured by the progress 8 scores of eligible students (17-18) against non-eligible students national average.

Progress 8 score of school’s PP students and national average of non-PP students to be less than or equal to 0.2

B.

Diminish the difference in rates of fixed periods of exclusions between in school eligible and non-eligible students, measured by comparison of fixed periods of exclusion

Reduction in behaviour points given to PP students, difference of days lost to fixed term exclusions to be lower than 20%

C.

Attendance of eligible students to continue to improve, measured by school attendance figures.

Attendance of eligible students to be higher than previous academic year (2016-17 = 92.8%)

D.

Attendance of eligible students families at school events improves, measured by the % of eligible families attending each school event

Attendance of eligible families to be above 65% at each event (highest eligible family attendance was 54% in 2016-7)

2

5. Planned expenditure Academic year

2017/18

The three headings below enable schools to demonstrate how they are using the Pupil Premium to improve classroom pedagogy, provide targeted support and support whole school strategies. i. Quality of teaching for all Desired outcome

Chosen action/approach

What is the evidence and rationale for this choice?

How will you ensure it is implemented well?

Staff lead

When will you review implementation?

A

Staffing - Progress Managers in years 7-11 to monitor and work with eligible students in each academic year group.

2016-17 in school GCSE exam data between school eligible and non-eligible students: P8 = -0.64 English = -0.56 Maths = -0.8 Ebacc = -0.57 Open = -0.69

Progress meetings- discussions with Deputy Principal, Assistant Leader of Disadvantaged students, Progress Managers and all CAL’s.

Analysis of data at the end of each assessment cycle Assessment data Mock examination outcomes Staff appraisals Line Manager meetings

CMO/MTA

Ongoing Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Appraisal Cycle

2017/18 Year 11 - Progress 8 differences are diminishing when compared at this stage to previous academic year (P8 difference 0.76 in 2016 and 0.47 now) Year 10 – eligible students are 53% overall on track or above with non-eligible at 59% Year 9 - 59% overall on track or above with non-eligible at 70% Year 8 – eligible students are 71% on track with an 11% difference to non-eligible students Year 7 – eligible students are 75% on track with a 9% difference to non-eligible students

3

A

Staffing – TLR holders to in English, maths and science to have specific PP student focus

2016-17 in school achievement differences between eligible and non-eligible students across all key stages and year groups.

2016-17 in school GCSE exam data between school eligible and non-eligible students: P8 = -0.64 English = -0.56 Maths = -0.8 Ebacc = -0.57 Open = -0.69

Progress meetings- discussions with Deputy Principal, Assistant Leader of Disadvantaged students, Progress Managers and all CAL’s.

Meetings with TLR holders CPD opportunities for TLR holders Analysis of data at the end of each assessment cycle Assessment data Staff appraisals

CMO/MTA

Ongoing Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Appraisal Cycle

Progress meetings- discussions with Deputy Principal, Assistant Leader of Disadvantaged students, Year 11 Progress manager and all CAL’s.

Meetings line manager CPD opportunities Analysis of data at the end of each assessment cycle Assessment data Staff appraisals

CMO

Ongoing Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Appraisal Cycle

Analysis of data at the end of each assessment cycle Assessment data Staff appraisals Student Voice Targeted intervention Progress meetings- discussions with Deputy Principal, Assistant Leader of Disadvantaged students, Progress Managers and all CAL’s.

DBU/ATB

Ongoing Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Appraisal Cycle

See figures above for current attainment differences between eligible and non-eligible students in school.

A

B.

Staffing - Assistant Leader of Disadvantaged students to lead staff whole school on eligible student progress.

2016-17 in school achievement differences between eligible and non-eligible students across all key stages and year groups.

Staffing – Behaviour Manager in all years to monitor and work with eligible students in each academic year group to improve behaviour outcomes

2016-17 A 30% difference existed in the total days lost to exclusion between eligible and non-eligible students.

Avg. Achievement Points Eligible = 237 Non-eligible = 256, Avg. Consequence Points Eligible = 93,

See figures above for current attainment differences between eligible and non-eligible students in school.

Non-eligible = 47 2017-18 Current data Eligible students have lost less days to exclusions compared to eligible students. 47% of days lost have been eligible students, a +6% difference

4

B. D.

Staffing – Child Protection Manager to work with specific eligible students

E.

2016-17 in school achievement differences between eligible and non-eligible students across all key stages and year groups.

2016-17 in school GCSE exam data between school eligible and non-eligible students: P8 = -0.64 English = -0.56 Maths = -0.8 Ebacc = -0.57 Open = -0.69 2016-17 A 30% difference existed in the total days lost to exclusion between eligible and non-eligible students.

Avg. Achievement Points Eligible = 237 Non-eligible = 256 2017-18 Current data Eligible students have lost less days to exclusions compared to eligible students. 47% of days lost have been eligible students, a +6% difference 2016-17 Eligible student attendance = 92.8% Whole school attendance figure = 94.4% 2017-18 Eligible student attendance at 94% Currently 1.6% higher than this time last academic year.

Avg. Consequence Points Eligible = 93, Non-eligible = 47

5

Analysis of data at the end of each assessment cycle Assessment data Staff appraisals Student Voice

GSH

Ongoing Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Appraisal Cycle

B.

Staffing – Intervention SSA to work in school’s Reflection Unit

2016-17 A 30% difference existed in the total days lost to exclusion between eligible and non-eligible students.

2017-18 Current data Eligible students have lost less days to exclusions compared to eligible students. 47% of days lost have been eligible students, a +6% difference Avg. Achievement Points Eligible = 237 Non-eligible = 256

Analysis of data at the end of each assessment cycle Assessment data Staff appraisals Student Voice

DBU

Ongoing Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Appraisal Cycle

A

Staffing – PP Champions

2016-17 in school achievement differences between eligible and non-eligible students across all key stages and year groups.

2016-17 in school GCSE exam data between school eligible and non-eligible students: P8 = -0.64 English = -0.56 Maths = -0.8 Ebacc = -0.57 Open = -0.69

Progress meetings- discussions with Deputy Principal, Assistant Leader of Disadvantaged students, Progress Managers and all CAL’s.

Meetings with TLR holders CPD opportunities for TLR holders Analysis of data at the end of each assessment cycle Assessment data Staff appraisals

MTA

Ongoing Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Appraisal Cycle

Weekly monitoring of eligible student attendance Reviews of specific eligible student caseloads

TBU/GSH

Ongoing Weekly Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Appraisal Cycle

B.

2016-17 A 30% difference existed in the total days lost to exclusion between eligible and non-eligible students.

Avg. Achievement Points Eligible = 237 Non-eligible = 256 2017-18 Current data Eligible students have lost less days to exclusions compared to eligible students. 47% of days lost have been eligible students, a +6% difference D.

Staffing - Pupil Welfare Officer

2016-17 Eligible student attendance = 92.8% Whole school attendance figure = 94.4% 2017-18 Eligible student attendance at 94% Currently 1.6% higher than this time last academic year.

6

B.

Lead Behaviour Managers to work with eligible students at risk of fixed term exclusions

2016-17 A 30% difference existed in the total days lost to exclusion between eligible and non-eligible students.

Analysis of data at the end of each assessment cycle Staff appraisals Student Voice

MKI

Ongoing Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Appraisal Cycle

Avg. Achievement Points Eligible = 237 Non-eligible = 256 2017-18 Current data Eligible students have lost less days to exclusions compared to eligible students. 47% of days lost have been eligible students, a +6% difference

ii. Targeted support Desired outcome

Chosen action/approach

What is the evidence and rationale for this choice?

How will you ensure it is implemented well?

Staff lead

When will you review implementation?

A.

KS3 Targeted Intervention

2017-18 Current Attainment Differences

MTA/PMO

End of every half term

Eligible students to be targeted for early intervention in English, Maths and Science

Year 9 - 59% overall on track or above with non-eligible at 70% Year 8 – eligible students are 71% on track with an 11% difference to non-eligible students Year 7 – eligible students are 75% on track with a 9% difference to non-eligible students

Assessment of students at the start and end of every intervention cycle – analysing of these results.

Monitoring of student progress at the end of each assessment cycle.

Student Voice Meetings with TLR holders with PP focus Attendance records All staff informed of targeted students Letters sent home prior to interventions starting Weekly texts sent home to parents

7

A.

Year 11 Targeted Intervention PP Students with predicted negative Progress 8 score to receive targeted intervention

A. B.

Two ‘Life Coaches’ to work with specific targeted eligible students.

2017/18 Current Attainment Differences Year 11 - Progress 8 differences are diminishing when compared at this stage to previous academic year (P8 difference 0.76 in 2016 and 0.47 now)

Targeted students work with Life coaches.

Of the students that have been working on a weekly basis this academic year, 50% have reported an increased perception of their improved behaviour in school.

Progress meetings- discussions with Deputy Principal, Assistant Leader of Disadvantaged students, Year 11 Progress manager and all CAL’s.

Monitoring of student progress at the end of each assessment cycle.

Student Voice Attendance records All staff informed of targeted students Letters sent home prior to Analysis of data at the end of interventions starting each assessment Weekly texts sent cycle home to Student parents Voice Student perception of behaviour form

CMO/MTA/ EWI

Ongoing Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Mock examination results

MTA/JHG

Ongoing End of every half term

iii. Other approaches Desired outcome

Chosen action / approach

What is the evidence and rationale for this choice?

How will you ensure it is implemented well?

Staff lead

When will you review implementation?

A.

Rewards for eligible students

Achievement and conduct differences exist between eligible and non-eligible students.

Analysis of data at the end of each assessment cycle – has the reward made an impact Assessment data Line Manager Meetings Student Voice

MTA

Ongoing Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4

B. Rewards to improve the motivation, attendance, attainment and conduct of non-eligible students.

D. E. B.

Member of Staff to lead school SOLO Room – a facility to support students at risk of exclusion

Provides opportunities for students at risk of exclusion to complete supervised work and still access school curriculum.

Monitoring of students who access this approach Monitoring of eligible student conduct and ambition points Parent/student meetings

DBU

Ongoing Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Appraisal Cycle

A.

Provision of set texts and examination materials

Eligible students may not have same access to these resources in comparison to non-eligible students.

Middle Leader Meetings CAP Meetings Student Voice

MTA

Ongoing Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4

8

A.

MINT Class Subscription

Software facilitates improvements in tracking, analysing and testing students.

Evidence to of use to be provided by staff in reflection weeks and at specific times during the year.

MTA

Reflection Week 1 Reflection Week 2 Reflection Week 3

A.

Accelerated Reader Subscription

Differences exist between average reading ages of eligible students and non-eligible students across all year groups.

Year 7 = -0.36 Year 8 = -1.64 Year 9 = -0.54 Year 10 = -0.77 Year 11 = -0.6

Meetings with stakeholders Monitoring of current targeted student reading ages Student Voice

JSL

Ongoing Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4

9

6. Review of expenditure Previous Academic Year

2016-17

i. Quality of teaching for all Desired outcome

Chosen action/approach

Estimated impact: Did you meet the success criteria? Include impact on pupils not eligible for PP, if appropriate.

Lessons learned (and whether you will continue with this approach)

Achievement gap between PP students and national non-PP to close

Staffing - PP Focused Time.

2016-17 in school achievement differences between eligible and non-eligible students across all key stages and year groups.

2016-17 in school GCSE exam data between school eligible and non-eligible students: P8 = -0.64 English = -0.56 Maths = -0.8 Ebacc = -0.57 Open = -0.69

Staff more aware of the eligible students in their classes.

Staff aware of strategies to use to target eligible students and to improve their progress Eligible student progress all staff and whole school key priority

Progress 8 score of school’s PP students and national average of non-PP students to be less than or equal to 0.2

Staff with an eligible student focus to be structured and to have specific staff that hold their performance to account and to guide their work with eligible students

Cost

£260,167

Continue but adapt to provide information on specific roles to allow easier analysis of staff impact on eligible student progress Achievement gap between PP students and national non-PP to close

Staffing – TLR holders to in English, maths and science to have specific PP student focus

Progress 8 score of school’s PP students and national average of non-PP students to be less than or equal to 0.2 Achievement gap between PP students and national non-PP to close Progress 8 score of school’s PP students and national average of non-PP students to be less than or equal to 0.2

Staffing – Appointment of Assistant Leader of Disadvantaged students.

2016-17 in school achievement differences between eligible and non-eligible students across all key stages and year groups.

2016-17 in school GCSE exam data between school eligible and non-eligible students: P8 = -0.64 English = -0.56 Maths = -0.8 Ebacc = -0.57 Open = -0.69

TLR holders in Key Subjects (Maths, English and Science) also had other responsibilities alongside the specific focus on eligible student progress in their Curriculum Areas.

2016-17 in school achievement differences between eligible and non-eligible students across all key stages and year groups.

2016-17 in school GCSE exam data between school eligible and non-eligible students: P8 = -0.64 English = -0.56 Maths = -0.8 Ebacc = -0.57 Open = -0.69

Greater emphasis on eligible students at a whole school level. Staff led by member of staff with regard strategies and information regarding student progress.

Staff member informed governing body of eligible student strategy and progress.

Member of staff to work with staff in key subject areas with a designated eligible student focus.

Member of staff to monitor the work of PP Champions and Progress Managers more rigourously.

10

To be continued but to adapt the TLR posts so that the member of staff in this role to only focus on the outcomes and progress of eligible students in their teams.

£12,284

£57,877

ii. Targeted Support

Achievement gap between PP students and national non-PP to close

KS3 Targeted Intervention PP students to be targeted for early intervention in English, Maths and Science

Differences exist in progress between eligible and non-eligible students still evident at KS3.

Attendance at KS3 intervention improving.

Students that attend the KS3 intervention evenings regularly (over 50% of sessions) have shown positive signs of progress.

Achievement gap between PP students and national non-PP to close Progress 8 score of school’s PP students and national average of non-PP students to be less than or equal to 0.2

Year 11 Targeted Intervention PP Students with predicted negative Progress 8 score to receive targeted intervention

Greater communication with parents needed.

Automated text system to be implemented and used.

2016-17 in school GCSE exam data between school eligible and non-eligible students: P8 = -0.64 English = -0.56 Maths = -0.8 Ebacc = -0.57 Open = -0.69

11

ÂŁ2000 Greater level of student reward for those students who attend on a regular basis.

Eligible student attendance at KS4 intervention significantly lower than non-eligible students Targeted student cohort to be reduced to ensure impact and implementation of the intervention programme is more effective.

Progress Meetings at KS4 level showing greater communication amongst and targeting of students.

To be continued but the process to be adapted, alternative in school intervention programme for eligible students to be created.

ÂŁ14,832

Achievement gap between PP students and national non-PP to close Progress 8 score of school’s PP students and national average of non-PP students to be less than or equal to 0.2

Interventions including mentoring, anger management and counselling. Additional schooling at Easter and on Saturdays during the Spring term to ensure we are meeting the needs of disadvantaged students.

2016-17 A 30% difference existed in the total days lost to exclusion between eligible and non-eligible students.

Avg. Achievement Points Eligible = 237 Non-eligible = 256 2016-17 in school GCSE exam data between school eligible and non-eligible students: P8 = -0.64 English = -0.56 Maths = -0.8 Ebacc = -0.57 Open = -0.69

Interventions need specific breakdown to be able to monitor the impact of the strategy more effectively.

Eligible students attendance at holiday period interventions significantly lower than non-eligible students

£21,165

This intervention to be continued but not focussed to eligible students. New in school intervention programme to be established to target eligible students.

Saturday School Impact: P8 All -0.42 P8 Any Saturday class -0.27 Maths Progress All -0.68 Maths Progress Saturday -0.04 Science Progress All (EBacc) -0.31 Science Progress Saturday (EBacc) -0.443 English Progress All -0.62 English Progress Saturday -0.90 Achievement gap between PP students and national non-PP to close Progress 8 score of school’s PP students and national average of non-PP students to be less than or equal to 0.2

Staffing – member of staff appointed to work with students to improve resilience

2016-17 A 30% difference existed in the total days lost to exclusion between eligible and non-eligible students.

Avg. Achievement Points Eligible = 237 Non-eligible = 256

More structured process for targeting students that require support with resilience.

Staff that deliver interventions for targeted students to provide quantitative and qualitative information before and after each half term.

One member of staff to provide information to staff that deliver the interventions.

Key stakeholders to provide relevant information to this staff member.

Improve the resilience of PP students

Caseloads to be reviewed on a more consistent basis To be continued but adapted for students to work with two “Life Coaches.”

12

Included in £21,165

iii. Other Approaches Improve social and cultural experiences of PP students

Promote PP attendance to school intervention programmes

Cultural Citizens Programme

Rewards

Targeted eligible students improved their average behaviour for learning scores.

Before programme the average behaviour for learning for eligible students was 56.5% (good or above) after the programme the figure was 60.6% (good or above) All students that took part re ceived a ‘Level One’ Arts Award from the Arts Council.

Students appeared more motivated to learn.

Students gained ‘cultural capital’ and provided life experiences that, they previously had not been able to access.

Eligible student attendance at school intervention minimal in comparison to non-eligible students.

Eligible student attendance significantly lower than non-eligible students (13% of students attended were eligible, Saturday school: 20.5% of students that attended were eligible)

P8 All -0.42 P8 Any Saturday class -0.27 Maths Progress All -0.68 Maths Progress Saturday -0.04 Science Progress All (EBacc) -0.31 Science Progress Saturday (EBacc) -0.443 English Progress All -0.62 English Progress Saturday -0.90

Improved attendance of PP students

Staffing – Pupil Welfare Officer

2016-17 Eligible student attendance = 92.8% Whole school attendance figure = 94.4% 2017-18 Eligible student attendance at 94% Currently 1.6% higher than this time last academic year.

Behaviour of PP students improves, measured by reduction in school behaviour points given to PP students and reduction of days exclusion for PP students

SOLO room

2016-17 A 30% difference existed in the total days lost to exclusion between eligible and non-eligible students.

Avg. Achievement Points Eligible = 237 Non-eligible = 256

13

No cost

All students that took part received a ‘Level One’ Arts Award from the Arts Council.

Continue to run intervention outside school hours and reward students that attend.

£7,595

Seek alternative intervention times within school hours, started registration intervention. Targeted eligible students)

Earlier attendance intervention appears to be more effective with eligible students Student ownership and target setting in relation to their own attendance having positive impact Rewards for 100% attendance having positive impact

£24,000

To be continued

Provides opportunities for students at risk of exclusion to complete supervised work and still access school curriculum. £13,000 To be continued

Achievement gap between PP students and national non-PP to close

Improved attendance of PP families at school events

Achievement gap between PP students and national non-PP to close

All staff to have PP focused target on their appraisal for the academic year 2016-17

Additional Progress Evenings for targeted PP students and their families

Provision of set texts for GCSE exam courses for PP students Cover the costs of essential trips for GCSE subjects for PP students

2016-17 in school achievement differences between eligible and non-eligible students across all key stages and year groups.

2016-17 in school GCSE exam data between school eligible and non-eligible students: P8 = -0.64 English = -0.56 Maths = -0.8 Ebacc = -0.57 Open = -0.69

Provides opportunities to provide evidence of specific strategies that staff have completed for eligible students.

Ran additional progress evenings for targeted eligible students.

Attendance of eligible student families consistently lower than non-eligible families.

30% of targeted eligible student families attended despite phone calls, texts, letters, prizes, food all being available

Alternative approaches to be investigated for eligible families.

2016-17 in school GCSE exam data between school eligible and non-eligible students: P8 = -0.64 English = -0.56 Maths = -0.8 Ebacc = -0.57 Open = -0.69

Monitor more closely the impact this intervention on the progress of the students that were provided with set resources to improve outcomes

£0 Disadvantaged student leader to investigate opportunity to hold copies of Disadvantaged students appraisal targets for staff.

(Included in rewards budget)

£1,814

Not all Curriculum areas request this approach; roll out to core subjects to diminish differences that appear.

7.

Additional detail

This document must also be read in conjunction with the costings document that is also published on the school’s website.

In 2013, the current ‘Executive Prinicpal’ at Montgomery High School won the North West Pupil Premium Award .This was followed up by the same school, Millfield Science and Performing Arts College, winning the ‘National Pupil Premium Award in 2014. Therefore following a full Pupil Premium review, carried out by the Executive Principal in June 2015, many strategies and allocations of resources were introduced, mirroring similar models that had worked at Millfield Science and Performing Arts College. Some of these strategies have not yet seen the same impact, however.

Montgomery High School is now committed to certain levels of staffing that would be difficult to alter. It is the school’s intention therefore to try and adjust this by reducing the allocation of funding to staffing by between 5 and 10% each year. This will allow the model used at Montgomery High School to continue to evolve and ultimately have an impact on student outcomes.

Disadvantaged students in particular benefit from stability. The students who left Montgomery High School in 2017, unfortunately spent years 7, 8, 9 and half of year 10 in a ‘Special Measures School.’ It is anticipated that as the school continues to be a calmer and systematically formed environment, disadvantaged students will benefit and continue to improve.

14

15