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 • Full PP Review January 2018 • 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

• April 2018

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

Pupils not eligible for PP (national average)

Disadvantaged Progress 8 score average

-0.85

0.11

Disadvantaged Attainment 8 score average

34.83

46

Disadvantaged Progress 8 score in Maths

-1.22

0.0 (data not available)

Disadvantaged Progress 8 score in English

-0.95

0.0 (data not available)

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.

Focus on high quality first teaching

B.

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

C.

Disadvantaged student work ethic

1

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

Disadvantaged student attendance (92.8%)

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.

Difference of the 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 Objective

Action

Rationale and Research

Projected Cost

Expected Outcomes

Review Point and impact

To raise the profile of disadvantaged student progress and strategies to diminish differences in attainment across the whole school.

Assistant Leader of Disadvantaged students in position.

The attainment of Disadvantaged students was named as a key priority for the school in the April 2016 OFSTED report

£59,848

Difference of the Progress 8 score of school’s PP students and national average of nonPP students to be less than or equal to 0.2

Cyclical

To develop strategies to improve disadvantaged student attainment in core subjects of English, Maths and Science

• • • •

Forming a team Finance Strategies Tracking progress

Assistant Curriculum Area Leaders to have a TLR related to disadvantaged student progress.

• • • •

In-school differences between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students to diminish compared to similar points in previous years.

Attainment gaps exist between disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged students across the school.

Large attainment gaps in core subjects exist between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students.

English, maths and science focus Tracking progress Interventions Pedagogy

£12,284

Strategies to improve disadvantaged student outcomes to be developed and shared amongst all staff within curriculum areas and across the school.

Disadvantaged student progress to be tracked more rigorously and key students identified for further interventions.

3

Cyclical

To develop the progress of specific underachieving cohorts of disadvantaged KS3 students

Disadvantaged student “Champions” in position to work with small cohorts of disadvantaged students to improve the progress they are able to make •

To improve the progress of Disadvantaged KS3 students.

Staff to run weekly intervention sessions in English, maths and science to underachieving disadvantaged students in years 7, 8 and 9.

•

To improve the progress of Disadvantaged Year 11 students.

Mentoring

Although the Education Endowment Foundation research suggests that mentoring is “low in terms of direct effect on academic outcomes”

£3,888

Groups of students identified and allocated.

Cyclical

Staff members to meet and mentor students

There is some evidence that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds can benefit by up to about two months’ additional progress

Student attainment and behaviour to improve

Other positive benefits have been reported in terms of attitudes to school, attendance and behaviour.”

Education Endowment Foundation Attainment Gap Report 2017 states that “Targeted small group and oneto-one interventions have the potential for the largest immediate impact on attainment”

£5,000

Education Endowment Foundation Attainment Gap Report 2017 states that “Targeted small group and oneto-one interventions have the potential for the largest immediate impact on attainment”

£18,000

Attendance at KS3 intervention to improve

Half Termly Cyclical

The progress and attainment of targeted disadvantaged students to improve.

Intervention

Underachieving disadvantaged students. targeted to receive specific interventions to improve the progress they make and reduce attainment differences • TLM IT User • Progress meetings

Progress 8 score for targeted Year 11 disadvantaged students to improve.

Attainment differences to diminish.

4

Cyclical

To improve access to set texts and key course equipment for disadvantaged students.

Provision of resources for disadvantaged students.

Equipment needed to study specific courses to be provided to allow disadvantaged to students opportunity to access them

School disadvantaged student voice appears to indicate that students do not have access to electronic resources at home. Students cannot access online revision materials.

School disadvantaged student voice appears to indicate that students do not have access to equipment needed to participate actively in lessons.

Additional opportunities to be provided in practical subjects for disadvantaged students to further attainment and experiences

5

ÂŁ5,000

Resources identified and provided.

Attainment of disadvantaged students to improve.

Engagement of disadvantaged students in lessons to be improved.

Cyclical

Improve cultural and life experiences of Disadvantaged students

To develop the reading skills of disadvantaged students.

Disadvantaged students to receive financial support for school visits and extracurricular opportunities.

• Visits • Cultural Experience

Education Endowment Foundation Research suggests that additional learning opportunities such as arts participation and outdoor learning can have significant impact on learning.

Disadvantaged students targeted to complete “Accelerated Reader” programme.

The Education Endowment Foundation research suggests that improving reading comprehension can have “on average, reading comprehension approaches improve learning by an additional five months’ progress.”

£5,000

Life experiences of disadvantaged students increased. Students to be able to draw upon these to improve progress in lessons.

Cyclical

Improved engagement of disadvantaged students in lessons and extracurricular events. £4,772

Accelerated reader score to improve for targeted disadvantaged students.

Cyclical

Average disadvantaged students reading ages to improve.

To provide staff with accurate information regarding Disadvantaged Students

MINT Class Subscription to be bought and used for staff when planning lessons • Planning • Bespoke Approach

Highlighted in the school’s OFSTED report of 2016 that “Some teachers do not consistently use the accurate information they hold about pupils’ achievement to plan learning that takes account of the learning of different groups of pupils.”

6

£1,250

Staff to use information in Bespoke Planning Sheets Staff to be more aware of which students are disadvantaged in the classes they teach and their current level of progress

Reflection Weeks

ii. Targeted support Objective

Action

Rationale and Research

Projected Cost

Expected Outcomes

Review Point and impact

To reduce days lost by disadvantaged students to fixed term exclusions

“A Lead Behaviour Manager” in position to work with disadvantaged students at risk of exclusions both fixed term and permanent.

The Education Endowment Foundation research suggests that behaviour interventions can have a moderate impact and can lead to an impact of up to three months on student learning.

£29,414

Number of days lost by disadvantaged students to fixed term exclusion to reduce.

Termly

In-school data suggests disadvantaged students receive more incidences of fixed term exclusion and therefore lose more days to exclusions.

Number of disadvantaged students permanently excluded to reduce.

Alternative approaches for disadvantaged students at risk of permanent exclusion created.

To provide pastoral support to vulnerable disadvantaged students

To provide support and strategies to improve attendance of ‘Persistently Absent’ disadvantaged students.

A “Lead Child Protection Manager” in position to work with vulnerable disadvantaged students at risk of social, emotional and physical harm.

Education Endowment Foundation research suggests that “Targeted interventions for those diagnosed or at-risk of emotional or behavioural disorders produce the greatest effects.”

A “Pupil Welfare Officer” in position to track and monitor the attendance of disadvantaged students.

PWO to work with families of students to improve attendance of specific students.

Research conducted by the Department for Education in 2014 (updated 2015) to observe the link between attendance and attainment suggests that students display a steady decrease in KS4 achievement as overall absence rates increase.”

£15,024

Improved well-being of disadvantaged students across the school.

Cyclical

Improved attendance of disadvantaged students.

In-school disadvantaged students’ PA figures higher than non-eligible students.

7

£40,000

Attendance of targeted disadvantaged students to improve.

Cases of disadvantaged students classed as ‘Persistently Absent’ to reduce.

Weekly

To improve the behaviour for learning of specific disadvantaged students

A “Life Coach” in position to work with targeted disadvantaged students to develop resilience and emotional skills to manage behaviour for learning more effectively

Education Endowment Foundation research suggests that “there is some evidence that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds can benefit by up to about two months’ additional progress” from engaging in a mentoring programme.

8

£14,000

Targeted student behaviour improves Targeted students to be able to display improved skills to manage behaviour, students to report an improvement in their own feelings towards their behaviour.

Half-termly

iii. Other Approaches To improve progress and attainment of disadvantaged students in all year groups.

A “Progress Manager” in position in each year group to work with disadvantaged students to track and monitor progress, and to develop strategies to improve the progress they make.

Education Endowment Foundation research suggests that the Attainment Gap between disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged students on average doubles whilst at secondary school.

“9.5 months difference at KS2 to 19.3 months at KS4.”

£113,265

Attainment gaps exist in all year groups. Key school priority highlighted in April 2016 OFSTED report.

Disadvantaged student progress in each year group tracked and monitored. Cohorts of students requiring additional support identified.

Cyclical

Attainment of disadvantaged students to improve in each year group.

Attainment differences to diminish.

To improve the behaviour for learning of disadvantaged students.

To improve the attendance of disadvantaged students across the school

To improve the aspirations of disadvantaged students

A “Behaviour Manager” in position in each year group to work with disadvantaged students to develop strategies to improve their behaviour for learning.

The Education Endowment Foundation research suggests that behaviour interventions can have a moderate impact and can lead to an impact of up to three months on student learning.

A “Lead Attendance Manager” in position to work with track, monitor and develop strategies to improve disadvantaged student attendance in all years

Research conducted by the Department for Education in 2014 (updated 2015) to observe the link between attendance and attainment suggests that students display a steady decrease in KS4 achievement as overall absence rates increase.”

A “Careers Advisor” in position to work with disadvantaged students regarding life choices and career pathways.

School disadvantaged student voice appears to indicate that large percentages of students do not know what they want to do when they leave school.

£57,927

Behaviour of disadvantaged students in each year group to improve.

Cyclical

Average behaviour net points of disadvantaged students to improve.

In school, data suggests that disadvantaged students receive more “behaviour points” than non-disadvantaged students do. £15,024

Attendance of disadvantaged students in each year group and whole school to improve.

Weekly

“12,600

All Disadvantaged students to receive a 1:1 “Careers Interview.”

Cyclical

Disadvantaged student attendance is lower than nondisadvantaged student attendance.

All disadvantaged students to receive a 1:1 “Options interview” Disadvantaged students to access opportunities to visit ‘Further

9

Education Establishments.�

To provide disadvantaged students with correct school uniform

Uniform for specific disadvantaged students provided.

Reduce incidences of disadvantaged students not complying with school’s Uniform Policy and therefore increasing number of behaviour points.

10

ÂŁ3,000

All disadvantaged students to wear correct school uniform.

Weekly Termly

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 GCSE exam data shows disadvantaged students P8 score as -0.85

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

2016/17 GCSE exam data shows disadvantaged students attainment gap compared to national nondisadvantaged students as -0.96

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

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

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

2016/17 GCSE exam data shows disadvantaged students P8 score as:

• • •

Maths -1.22 English -0.95 Ebacc (includes Science) -0.67

11

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.

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

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

Staffing – Appointment of Assistant Leader of Disadvantaged students.

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

IDSR 2015/16 non disadvantaged performance percentile was 72 IDSR 2016/17 non disadvantaged performance percentile was 85

ii. Targeted Support

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

IDSR 2015/16 disadvantaged performance percentile was 78 IDSR 2016/17 disadvantaged performance percentile was 88

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

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

£57,877

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

Greater communication with parents needed.

Automated text system to be implemented and used.

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

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 rigorously.

Year 11 Targeted Intervention

Students targeted for intervention at cycle one in 2016/17 displayed an average P8 score of -3.17

PP Students with predicted negative Progress 8 score to receive targeted intervention

Same students targeted for intervention final P8 score in 2016/17 displayed an average of -1.05.

12

£2000 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.

£14,832

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.

Students who regularly attended the school’s “Saturday School Intervention showed an improvement in their P8 score in 2016/17 GCSE exams.

P8 All -0.42 P8 Any Saturday class -0.27

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.

Maths Progress 8 All -0.68 Maths Progress Saturday -0.04 Science Progress 8 All (EBacc) -0.31 Science Progress 8 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.”

13

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 received 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 interventions 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)

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.

No cost

£7,595

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

14

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 GCSE exam data shows disadvantaged students P8 score as -0.85

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

2016/17 GCSE exam data shows disadvantaged students attainment gap compared to national nondisadvantaged students as -0.96

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

£0

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.

Disadvantaged students received set texts necessary to access the GCSE specifications

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

(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.

15

Appendix – Projected Spend 2017/18 Costing Sheet Staffing STAFFING:

PLANNED COST:

40% of the cost of 5 Behaviour Managers

£57,927

40% of the cost of Attendance Manager

£15,024

40% of the cost of Lead Behaviour Managers

£29,414

40% of the cost of Child Protection Manager

£15,024

40% of the cost of Intervention SSA

£6,044

Assistant Leader for PP 100%

£59,848

TLR holders for PP in English, Maths, and Science

£12,284

Champions TLR 3

£3,888

Progress Managers 5 x 40%

£113,265

PWO

£40,000

Careers Adviser

£12,600

Overall Total:-

£365,318

16

Other Approaches Approach:

PLANNED COST:

KS3 targeted intervention.

£5,000

Year 11 targeted intervention.

£18,000

Life Coach

£14,000

Rewards

£5,000

SOLO Room

£15,000

Provision of set texts and educational materials.

£5,000

Mint class seating

£1,250

Accelerated readers

£4,722

17