Pupil Premium Strategy Statement 2017-2018

EMO 2017/18

Pupil premium strategy statement: The Samworth Church Academy Policy Information Named personnel with designated responsibility Academic Year

Director of Deep Support

Team Director of Deep Support

2017/18

Carl Storey (CSO)

Emma Mottram (EMO)

Policy Review Dates: (Frequency of Review: Annually) Review Date

Changes Made

By whom:

February 2018

Policy Reviewed

Emma Mottram

Contents 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Introduction Funding Evidence of what works Accountability Pupil Premium Reporting Performance Tables Strategy Statement

Introduction Pupil premium is an additional funding grant for publicly funded schools in England given to raise the attainment of disadvantages pupils of all abilities and to diminish the differences between them and their peers.

Evidence of What Works The Education Endowment Foundation has produced a teaching and learning toolkit to help teachers and schools effectively use the pupil premium to support disadvantaged pupils. Its families of school toolkit helps teachers learn about effective practice from similar school. It has also produced an evaluation toolkit to help schools measure the impact of the approaches they are using.

Information can be found on schools that have been recognised for their successful use of the premium on the Pupil Premium Awards website.

Pupil Premium Reporting We must publish a strategy for the school’s use of the pupil premium.

For the current academic year, we must include:     

our school’s pupil premium grant allocation amount a summary of the main barriers to educational achievement faced by eligible pupils at the school how we’ll spend the pupil premium to address those barriers and the reasons for that approach how we’ll measure the impact of the pupil premium the date of the next review of the school’s pupil premium strategy

For the previous academic year, we must include:  how we spent the pupil premium allocation  the impact of the expenditure on eligible and other pupils Pupil premium funding is allocated for each financial year, but the information we publish online should refer to the academic year, as this is how parents understand the school system.

Strategy Statement 1. Summary information School

The Samworth Church Academy

Academic Year

2017/18

Total PP budget

273,020

Date of most recent PP Review

N/A

Total number of pupils

1165

Number of pupils eligible for PP

292

Date for next internal review of this strategy

Feb’ 18

2. Current attainment Pupils eligible for PP 2017

Pupils eligible for PP 2016

Pupils not eligible for PP National Average 2017

Pupils not eligible for PP National Average 2016

Progress 8 score average

-0.27

-0.77

0.11

0.12

Attainment 8 score average

37.04

37.2

53.3

P8 Score Maths

-0.35

-0.02

P8 Score English

-0.79

-0.6

49.51 NOT YET AVAILABLE ( NOT YET AVAILABLE

(Our school 0.15) (Our school -0.39)

3. Barriers to future attainment (for pupils eligible for PP including high ability) In-school barriers A.

The rate of literacy skill improvement and attainment continues to decrease over time; pupil premium boys, in particular, do not improve in the same way as pupil premium girls.

B.

Middle attaining pupils who are eligible for PP are making less progress than low and high prior attaining pupils across all key stages. Figures below illustrate the gap between pupil premium and non - pupil premium performance.

English Progress: LAL GAP -0.7; MAL -0.9; HAL; -0.55, Maths Progress: LAL GAP -0.14; MAL -0.57; HAL -0.5.

Overall Progress: LAL GAP -0.18; MAL -0.85; HAL -0.17.

C.

PPr students have a higher rate of C4, resulting in missed learning from lessons.

9.7% of PPr cohort 20+ C4 v 2.9% of nPPr cohort 20+ C4, 2016-17.

External barriers D.

Attendance rates for pupils eligible for FSM Ever 6 are lower (below the target for all children of 95%). This reduces their school hours and causes their average to fall behind.

Attendance: PPr 89% v nPPr 95%, 2016-17

4. Outcomes A.

Outcome

How is this going to be measured?

Equal rates of literacy improvement and attainment for non-pupil premium and pupil premium students

STAR reader data, Lexia program and current attainment data indicate equal rates of improvement.

Particular focus on years 7, 8 and 9.

B.

Improved rates of progress across all key stages and subjects for mid- attaining pupils eligible for PP.

The gap between pupils eligible for PP identified as mid attaining (from KS2 levels / raw scores) is equitable to other KS2 profiles.

To be no less than 0.3 away from non pupil-premium performance, working towards an in-house gap of 0.

C.

Decreased behavioural points for PP, leading to higher rates of engagement within lessons.

Monitoring of behavioural points by learning managers, GHE and EMO.

PPr Behavioural Gap to be less than 6.8% and working towards 0% with reductions on proportions of both PPr and nPPr cohorts with 20+ C4.

D.

Increased attendance rates for pupils eligible for FSM Ever 6.

Attendance data tracking and monitoring by SBA.

Reduce the number of persistent absentees (PA) among pupils eligible for FSM Ever 6 to 15% or below. Overall attendance among pupils eligible for PP improves from 82% to 95% in line with ‘other’ pupils.

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 and measure impact?

Staff lead

When will you review implementation?

A. Equal literacy improvement and attainment for nonpupil premium and pupil premium students

All students in Years 7, 8 and 9 follow a disparate literacy curriculum, 1 hour a week, within English curriculum time.

“Struggling readers benefit from additional explicit instruction to help them acquire and apply tools to gain success in reading” (Cantrell & Wheeler, 2011)

CST and EXEC’ learning walks into literacy lessons.

CST/JHA

Feb’ 2018

Monitoring of Year 7-9 English CPI data.

EXEC.

JHA

B. Improved rates of progress across all key stages and subjects for midattaining pupils eligible for PP.

B. Improved rates of progress across all key stages and subjects for midattaining pupils eligible for PP.

Streamlined and documented focus on middle leadership using performance data to prompt and monitor strategic interventions/modifications to teaching in classrooms. Focus on mid ability.

“Findings from the synthesis of qualitative research, conducted primarily in the UK (school case studies, observations, etc), indicate that schools are adopting a number of promising strategies…” such as “ rigorous monitoring and use of data”

Robust line management of team leaders (monitoring in-house gap of these cohorts across subject areas), with a half-termly focus on performance data.

Focus on improving T&L strategies for all (investment in CPD in engaging T&L, on improving Oracy and supporting collaborative structures within lessons). £6500 investment in oracy training. £2000 Amjad Ali CPD investment.

“The claim that school leaders improve teaching and learning indirectly and most powerfully through their influence on staff motivation, commitment and working conditions is well substantiated in all the research reviewed here. The IMPACT study provided many examples, such as aligning CPD to the school development plan-”

T&L RAG

EXEC’

Feb’ 2018

MFL & IJA

Feb’ 2018

In house gaps to diminish across all subjects, or improve in current areas of strength.

Exec’.

Education Development Trust * (Full link in footnotes).

B. Improved rates of progress across all key stages and subjects for midattaining pupils eligible for PP

PP book reviews to occur each term looking specifically at the quality of feedback and information given to drive improvements

Book Review Documentation demonstrates PPr student engagement.

MFL & IJA

A. PPr students have a higher rate of C4, resulting in absence from lessons.

Whole school focus on BFL strategy training during CPD time, with an expectation of BFL improvement to particularly engage challenging boys in the classroom environment.

Judicious and effective use of the PLC prompted by systematic weekly monitoring of the consequences system.

“Coaching teachers in new teaching strategies significantly raises outcomes for children living in poverty. Researchproven approaches include cooperative learning (structured groupwork), frequent assessment and meta-cognitive (‘learning to learn’) strategies.”

Learning walks and observation of behavioural data in Pupil Premium focussed meetings.

EXEC’ and GHE/EMO

Half-termly

T&L RAG

Effective classroom strategies for closing the gap in educational achievement for children and young people living in poverty, including white working-class boys. C4EO.

Total budgeted cost £8500

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?

B. Improved rates of progress across all key stages and subjects for midattaining pupils eligible for PP.

121 and small group provision within English and maths at KS4.

121 interventions for underachieving students in year 7.

Some students need targeted literacy and numeracy support to catch up.

Data tracking of these students to monitor and measure impact with RAG meeting.

HOD Maths/ English

Half-termly.

£90,000

The EEF Toolkit suggests that targeted interventions matched to specific students with particular needs can be effective, especially for older pupils.

EMO Pupil Premium Coordinator

A. Equal literacy improvement and attainment for nonpupil premium and pupil premium students

Pupil premium boys’ reading club.

Investment in a set of texts.

A. Equal literacy improvement and attainment for nonpupil premium and pupil premium students

More focused delivery of Lexia program. Increased training on software for non-specialist teachers who are delivering this outside of specialism.

£450.

STAR reading tests to underpin this and to allow for monitoring of RA improvement.

Lexia: £30,000 (3 year cost) AR: £13,000 B. Improved rates of progress across all key stages and subjects for midattaining pupils eligible for PP.

Building on High Aspirations program:  Careers Ready targeted program;  NEET Prevention program;  Sixth Form PP events to ensure PP students have equal access to university and workplace information and engagement.  JP Morgan pilot scheme

Teacher/student mentoring, providing students with personal guidance tailored to their career and university choices.

“The issue is deep-seated. Test results consistently show this is a long-term and international trend. Boys’ attitudes towards reading and writing, the amount of time they spend reading and their achievement in literacy are all poorer than those of girls” – The Boys’ Reading Commission, National Literacy Trust.

Monitoring of behaviour and engagement of selected boys.

“In numerous studies published in peer-reviewed journals, Lexia has been found to accelerate the development of critical fundamental literacy skills.”

Lexia learning walks.

Program is proven to be an effective strategy for improving the literacy standards of weaker students.

To provide extra support to engender high aspirations.

Aimed at breaking down barriers to university and high profile careers, and making it achievable and accessible for all.

EMO

April 2018

EMO

Feb’ 2018

Subsequent analyses of library usage and tracking of reading age/ attainment data.

Separate classes created to accommodate Lexia students in quiet, dedicated learning environment.

Termly analyses of STAR reading age data, in addition to analyses of English CA in relation to Lexia users.

Student Voice.

Study of leaver’s destination data, hopefully demonstrating increased uptake of university places from students eligible for Pupil Premium.

March 2018 CTA BGO O/S by EMO (PPC)

Total budgeted cost £133,450 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?

D. Increased attendance rates for pupils eligible for FSM Ever 6.

Significant increase in focus on Pupil Premium student attendance.

In Sept 2011 Michael Gove identified an educational underclass of children who have simply not spent enough time in school to achieve academic success. The link between attendance and academic achievement is clear.

Data tracking of these students to show impact of the monitoring and intervention.

SBA (EWO) And EMO.

Jan’ 2018

“Findings from the synthesis of qualitative research, conducted primarily in the UK (school case studies, observations, etc), indicate that schools are adopting a number of promising strategies…” such as “ rigorous monitoring and use of data”

Half termly monitoring by PPR coordinator and learning managers.

Learning managers EMO

Half-termly

Weekly monitoring of Ppr student attendance, including additional interventions (for students and families), such as involvement of community services, community engagement and outreach events, in addition to staff attendance mentors.

Education Welfare Officer continues to lead attendance team, to challenge and support children and families with attendance issues including signposting and involving outside agencies where appropriate.

Educational Welfare Officer (EWO) Salary £40,000 B. Improved rates of progress across all key stages and subjects for mid attaining pupils eligible for PP.

War Room: Close Tracking & Monitoring of PP students, using EAP residual scores, with faces and names.

Effective classroom strategies for closing the gap in educational achievement

for children and young people living in poverty, including white working-class boys. C4EO. B.Improved rates of progress across all key stages and subjects for mid attaining pupils eligible for PP.

Celebrating Success Agenda: Series of assemblies celebrating improvements for the full cohort for all year groups. Focus on growth mind set and improvement to engage Ppr students. £800 reward fund.

“Children from deprived areas respond positively to opportunities that raise their aspirations for learning and future success”

Student voice.

EMO

Effective classroom strategies for closing the gap in educational achievement for children and young people living in poverty, including white working-class boys. C4EO.

Total budgeted cost £40,800

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)

Cost

A. Equitable literacy improvement for non pupil premium and pupil premium students in years 7, 8 and 9.

Lexia program engagement for all students who are reading at an a year below expected standards for their age, or below.

STAR reading tests to underpin this and to allow for monitoring of improvement.

Lexia: £30,000 AR: £13,000

Year 8 2016/17 English current attainment indicator (against EAP): NPpr: +0.5 Ppr: +0.4* (The whole year group shows a gap of -0.3)

Lexia has made significant impact on the English current attainment of Ppr students, so we will continue with this.

£43,000

Year 9 2016/17 English current attainment indicator (against EAP): NPpr: +0.0 Ppr: -0.1 (The whole year group shows a gap of -0.4)

We will certainly continue with this approach, but streamline it to the most needy readers.

Lexia delivery team need to have more training on using the Lexia software.

Proposal has been put forward for additional one hour literacy time to lesson burden on English curriculum time.

Indicating significant success in diminishing the gap between Ppr and NPpr for those who took part in Lexia.

A. Equitable literacy improvement for non pupil premium and pupil premium students in years 7, 8 and 9.

‘Secret Literacy’ CPD within English to encourage a contextualised and embedded approach to teaching literacy skills at KS3 and beyond.

Overa ll 0.1

NPpr

Ppr

Gap

Year 0.1 9 Year 0.1 0.5 8 Year 0.7 0.8 7  See additional notes.

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Change of data platform and assessment means comparison to previous year not possible, but we will measure this against data points throughout 2017/18 to observe improvement trends.

Contextualised literacy is proving to effectively bridge literacy gaps for our Pupil Premium cohort, so we will continue to deploy this method.

A. Equitable literacy improvement for non pupil premium and pupil premium students in years 7, 8 and 9.

Focus on engaging boys within the English curriculum and in the text selection throughout the literacy curriculum. Whole school drive to raise profile of reading, targeted at boys.

We need to continue to work to raise the engagement with reading for boys.

Reading initiates are planned to sharpen this approach and give us the capacity to track this kind of intervention in a more focussed manner.

Purchase of set of ‘Here I stand’ texts. £450. WBD: large event aimed at whetting the appetite of male readers.

Students and staff anecdotally recall the WBD as a positive event, but we need to find a way to improve the frequency and measurability of such events.

We’re going to build on this and continue to raise the profile of reading with a literacy/Oracy crossover event.

£450.

ii. Targeted support 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)

Cost

B. Improved rates of progress across all key stages and subjects for high attaining pupils eligible for PP.

121 and small group provision within English and maths at KS4.

English: 87% improvement (total number 23), an average improvement of 1.3 grades.

Continue with this strategy and increase its usage by adding to the 121/small group delivery team.

£80000

Maths: 88% improvement (total number 29), 58% significantly so (by 0.5 of a grade or more).

B. Improved rates of progress across all key stages and subjects for high attaining pupils eligible for PP.

Careers Ready targeted program;

Difficult to measure quantatively throughout KS3 &4: qualitative accounts suggest positive engagement.

Create official student voice monitoring strategy to ensure we get the roll out of this right. Find additional ways of measuring this impact.

Sixth Form PP events to ensure PP students have equal access to university information and engagement.

72% of Pupil Premium year 13 leavers (13/18) went on to higher education.

We will continue.

Teacher/student mentoring, providing students with personal guidance tailored to their career and university choices.

Regular reviewing of individual progress and guidance given on how to improve.

Students cite a positive experience, and we developed supporting frameworks of the mentoring program. Stronger accountability measures need to be introduced to ensure the mentoring is supported fully.

We will continue but provide a more robust support and challenge framework for the mentors.

Nottingham Trent University Raising Aspirations programme to be introduced to all year groups

Difficult to measure quantatively throughout KS3&4: qualitative accounts suggest positive engagement.

We will continue, and consider other university institutions to broaden our offering.

iii. Other approaches Desired outcome

Chosen action/approach

C. Increased attendance rates

Education Welfare Officer appointed to lead attendance team, to challenge and support children and families with attendance issues including signposting and involving outside agencies where appropriate.

C. Equitable achievement for pupil premium boys and girls in KS4.

Weekly focussed RAG where both genders are discussed in detail, and where students who are underperforming are directed towards specific interventions, with PP status meaning students are delineated as a 1 (on a hierarchical scale of 1>4) to determine need of available interventions.

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)

Cost

More focussed intervention work to re-engage pupil premium students at risk of low attendance.

EWO £40000

2016/17: PPr 89% v nPPr 95 2015/16: Ppr 90.1% v 95.6.

The gap remains largely similar, so we did not meet our success criteria. This remains an issue.

Pupil Premium gap between boys and girls is -0.4 (in favour of girls’ achievement).

The gap between boys and girls for all children is -0.5.

See planned Other Approaches for this year’s planned expenditure.

Yes, but RAG meetings are now aligned to the school priority key groups, so in particular we will look at mid attaining disadvantaged pupils in addition to all other areas of underachievement.

This demonstrates marginal success in closing the gender gap for our pupil premium students, within the national context of perpetual national underachievement of boys.

Build a celebration culture whereby Boys’ achievements are celebrated as much as girls.

7. Additional detail The above funding and provision information is in addition to full investment in improving T&L standards, and in improving leadership and management for the delivery and deployment of the strategies to improve attainment for all.

The 2017 TSCA disadvantaged students' average Progress 8 score was -0.3 compared to -0.76 in 2016. We are pleased with this progress, but continue to strive to completely reduce our in-house gap, and to bring our Pupil Premium performance in line with national non-pupil premium standards. *5 students were out of lessons and have been removed from the data for year 8, to show the progress made by the whole cohort. With those 5 students’ data included (which amounted to X) the Ppr EAP is -0.4, and reduces the gap to -0.9) *https://www.educationdevelopmenttrust.com/~/media/EDT/Reports/Research/2015/r-successful-school-leadership.pdf