Location: HomeSchool ► Pupil Premium

Pupil Premium

What we do

One of the foundational principles at St. John Vianney School & Children’s Centre is equity. For us equality does not mean that everyone is treated the same. Following Jesus describing the pay received by the workers in the vineyard, for us equality means that everyone receives what they need rather than what they deserve. Thus, funding follows need. 

We have learnt that if practice is developed to ‘get it right’ for the most vulnerable: in learning for children with special educational needs and/or disabilities; in care for looked after children; and, in enrichment for children with limited cultural experiences, then all children benefit. Therefore the practice and programmes we have developed addresses the needs we have identified rather than any ‘label’ that has been attached to them. 

We find that children attracting pupil premium fall into all the different groups we consider in school and as with all children, it is important to develop an individualised and personal programme, rather than follow a prescribed route. Thus, using their pupil premium entitlement, we are able to ensure the child has swift and easy access to whichever programmes may be supportive. 

We also find that children entitled to pupil premium make more use of some elements of school life – maybe those ones they are not finding elsewhere - both valuing them more and accruing greater benefit than other children in the setting. 

In care:

In learning:

In enrichment:

We find that a large proportion of Parent Support Advisor (PSA) time is devoted to parents of children attracting pupil premium. The benefit for parents seems to be that not only is the initial reason for accessing the service resolved, but also, more importantly, the resulting relationship, similar to extended family, provides a shoulder to lean-on or even just a listening ear, for the future. For some parents it is comparable to having access to a ‘life-coach’ – maybe a role grandmothers used to play in the community. 

What impact

The greatest impact of our practice with children attracting pupil premium seems to be relational. We aim to establish ‘home at school’ so that all children have a safe and secure environment in which they can take risks with learning and not worry about mistakes. For some children establishing this high level of trust takes a lot of time and quite a bit of testing.

At times we have hard messages to share with parents, applying more challenge to learning or behaviour expectations than they think reasonable. Having experienced the safe and secure environment, the consistent boundaries and staff, the child usually continues to engage and strives forward to these challenging goals. In some cases, withdrawing support and fostering independence is the most difficult transition for both child and parents to manage and the slow stepping back is sensitively handled to ensure success.

The meta-cognitive aspect of learning seems to be one area where pupil premium children seem to benefit disproportionately well. Any provision which encourages children to think and talk about the process of learning is successful in both raising confidence and attainment. Often this achievement is transferred to other areas of learning, which is why our pursuit of gift is so important. Once a child recognises that they can do something – anything – better than the majority of their peers, and can link that to the time they devote to enjoying, practicing and mastering that ability, then they realise learning is within their control.

The use made of feedback, to support a child’s self-evaluation and provide a realistic view of attainment and achievement again seems to be more useful for children attracting pupil premium, especially where this leads to peer-tutoring when they have a chance to look at another child’s performance and ‘coach’ them to improve.

Our aim is for all children, regardless of their starting point with us, to attain above the national expectation by the end of key stage 2, so that they are in the best possible place to make the most of secondary school. While this goal has not yet been reached we find that over time we are coming closer to this goal.

What next

During this year, 2017-18, one of our intentions is for all children to practice, problem solve and apply or explain their learning. This builds on developments we began in previous year and should bring together deliberate practice, spaced retrieval and meta-cognition of the learning process into a single integrated approach - a Modern Trivium. Again, this is not being developed as a programme for pupil premium, but since it brings together many of the practices we have seen having impact for these children, it should support their achievement.

We are also interested to discover that a considerable proportion of our teaching staff received FSM as children and would have attracted PP today. We wonder if these teachers and staff approach children in similar circumstances with a determination and expectation to make sure the children in their care achieve through success in education as they did themselves. In considering: Are there noticeable difference in relationships or practice? We find the quality of relationship - supportive and challenging - is regularly commented upon both by parents and other observers of our practice. We hope to further develop our awareness to consider its significance in the learning of our children, and particularly those attracting pupil premium.

 

Pupil premium strategy statement

Summary information

Academic Year

2017-18

Total PP budget (April 2017)

£52,640

Total number of pupils

204

Number of pupils eligible for PP

37+2

 

Attainment in 2018

 

Pupils eligible for PP

(in Y6)

Pupils not eligible for PP

(in Y6)

Pupils not eligible for PP (national)

Cohort

4

19

 

% achieving in reading, writing and maths

75

94.7

Not available

Average progress in reading

12.9

5.3

0

Average progress in writing

4.7

3.4

0

Average progress in maths

11.0

6.3

0

 

Barriers to future attainment (for pupils eligible for PP, including high ability) looking towards 2018-19

 In-school barriers (issues to be addressed in school, such as poor oral language skills)

A.    

Writing was the limiting judgement for 1 PP child and is reflective of limited experience both of writing and things to write about

B.    

PP children overall, made more progress than other pupils, suggesting they ‘catch-up’ in KS 2, but under-performed in KS1.

C.

In greater depth performance at Key Stage 2, PP children outperformed peers in reading, but not in other aspects.

Desired outcomes

 

Desired outcomes and how they will be measured

Success criteria

A.    

To improve writing performance, by extending experiences of the world (by PP children attending additional educational visits with classes other than their own), in order to have something to write about (working with a ‘writing coach’ upon their return), with improvement being seen in writing assessment using school writing tool.

All targeted (PP) children in Upper Years to engage with at least 2 additional educational visits, and thus compose 2 additional pieces of extended writing, receiving 1:1 guidance from their writing coach, in its execution and editing, and ultimately reaching expected standard for each class, confirmed at the end of each key stage.

B.    

Once phonics has secured reading skills, to improve comprehension by extending access for PP children to high quality, challenging reading materials (by extending provision of books that support the wider curriculum) to encourage engagement and purposeful reading (through sharing their learning after completion of a text, with an interested adult), as measured by improvement against ‘comprehension age’.

All targeted (PP) children to demonstrate fluency in reading, before being challenged through comprehension of wider and more complex texts, that encourage child to extend their reading attainment in order to gain comprehension and knowledge from the text. Each child will access an ‘interested’ adult guiding their text choice and celebrating the learning gained from their reading. Success will be ultimately seen in improved comprehension as measured by the gap with chronological age closing or being reversed.

C.    

To increase proportion of children achieving greater depth by intervening with PP children emerging from key stage 1 with above average, but not greater depth, scores in a particular aspect, providing additional support and challenge to heighten expectations in this aspect (as measured by reaching at least expected standard in all aspects and greater depth in the chosen strand by the end of key stage 2 SAT).

To encourage parental ‘belief’ that identified PP children ‘can’ outperform peers and should continue to excel in future.

All targeted (PP) children to receive 1:1 coaching in their ‘best’ subject area so that they ‘believe’ they can achieve above the expected standard. Through making manifest and explicit the resultant improvement, children to gain ‘self-efficacy’ so that in future they will be resistant to the lack of expectation of others. Success is ultimately seen in greater depth scores.

Parent Support to identify parents of PP children outperforming their peers and share strategies that would support their child to recognise their achievement and continued expectation of success.

A-C

To improve ‘basic skills’ of oracy and language as a gateway to wider and deeper learning, ensuring no PP child is left behind.

 

Early identification of children at risk of underperformance to ensure access to appropriate support from SALT. For those successfully completing SALT, a programme of accelerated learning to ensure their access to the curriculum matches that of peers, as measured by school tracking.

 

 

Review of expenditure

Academic Year

2018-19

    i.   Quality of teaching for all

Desired outcome

Chosen action/approach

Estimated impact: Did we 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) To improve accuracy of writing judgement

Teacher training & implementation of comparative judgement

Using “No more marking’s” comparative judgement programme to assess children’s writing in comparison to the national cohort, teachers are more confident that their judgement of writing reflects a true picture of attainment and progress for learners.

Reports from NMM provide another source of evidence, while reducing workload, enabling teachers to target their efforts more accurately and identify children in need of targeted intervention. Relatively low cost means this approach is worth continuing.

£2,710

(B) Phonics & comprehension intervention

BLAST, retrieval practise and Repeated Reading to build fluency;

 

Reciprocal Reading and ‘Interested Adult’ intervention to improve comprehension

29 PP children from Reception to Y4 received at least one intervention in phonics and a further 2 children accessed ‘Repeated Reading’.

 

 

23 PP children from Y1 – Y6 received at least one intervention to improve comprehension.

 

 

For individual children improvement in fluency and/or improvement in comprehension is evident from pre- and post-intervention testing. However, it has become apparent that we do not precisely judge the transition from fluency to comprehension. Comprehension is used as a proxy measure as an ultimate end, which disguises both needs – those who can’t read fluently are targeted in the upper years for comprehension, while those who can read fluently can be overlooked when judging comprehension. Thus, while we think these interventions are worth continuing, we must improve our diagnosis of need.

£17,865

(B) Enhance resources for reading

 

Suitable extension reading material were purchased to support phonics and comprehension development.

Books that encourage reading in areas of interest across the curriculum would benefit reading for comprehension and enjoyment, if sufficient funding next year.

£2,750

   ii.   Targeted support

Desired outcome

Chosen action/approach

Estimated impact: Did we 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) To improve writing performance, by extending experiences of the world

Guided educational visits; 1:1 coaching session

31 children in receipt of PP from Y2-6 received intervention; 28 of these children made expected or better progress in writing (comparing average progress of PP with non-PP, an average of 4 months of additional progress was observed)

Obviously this is very small scale and although correlation suggests a positive impact, we cannot be certain of causation. However, its relatively low cost and disproportionate cognitive demand on the recipient rather than the practitioners, means it is worth continuing to evaluate further. (PP child is made to work harder than peers and practitioners) Although coaching was positive, in future spaced delivery of the coaching might be better.

£7,824

(C) To intervene with PP children in year 3 and their parents/carers.

Coaching in subject with ‘best performance’;

 

 

 

Informing parents of child’s success and encourage their expectation of this to continue.

Of the 7 children attracting PP in year 3, 6 were identified for coaching. During the year the class teacher undertook ‘light-touch’ encouragement to make manifest their success in a strand of learning.

 

PSA made contact with the parents of the identified children and talked through their Key Stage 1 Performance, explaining the scale score and implications of attainment against national cohort. Through on-going contact, the PSA remined parents of the expectation for their child in future and encouraged them similarly.

Obviously very early days for this type of intervention, however EEF suggest feedback as well as parental engagement have positive impact. So, we will continue this approach to test its impact, while at the same time establishing the same approach with the next cohort, to extend the scope.

 

£12,300

(A-C) To improve basic skills of oracy and language

Enhanced Speech & Language provision

9 children receiving PP accessed Speech & Language enhanced provision and required therapy, as assessed by SALT which is approx. 45% of total children accessing such intervention.

 

Children are in obvious need of the enhanced provision and access therapy because of assessment by SALT. Having received the intervention they are assessed out of therapy by SALT, with obvious improvement in speech. Assessment out of intervention now informs the practitioners’ focus within the EYFS curriculum. While this is an improvement from previous unaligned practice, now that the ‘hand-over’ process has been established the EY Manager and SENco need to refine this going forward and consider suitable resources.

£4,603

 iii.   Other approaches

Desired outcome

Chosen action/approach

Estimated impact: Did we 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

Not appropriate this year

 

 

 

 

Total expenditure

£48,052

Out-turn

£4,588

 

Summary information

Academic Year

2018-19

Total PP budget (April 2018)

£70,600

Total number of pupils

200

Number of pupils eligible for PP

50+2

 

Attainment in 2019

 

Pupils eligible for PP

(in Y6)

Pupils not eligible for PP

(in Y6)

Pupils eligible (not eligible) for PP [national]

Cohort

6

22

 

% achieving in reading, writing and maths

100

86.4

51 (70)

Average progress in reading

9.31

1.96

0

Average progress in writing

8.03

2.22

0

Average progress in maths

5.49

3.64

0

 

Barriers to future attainment (for pupils eligible for PP, including high ability) looking towards 2019-20

 In-school barriers (issues to be addressed in school, such as poor oral language skills)

A.

Building on a perceived strength in reading, to improve comprehension both for enjoyment and breadth of material across the curriculum.

B.

PP children overall, continue to show more progress than other pupils, suggesting they ‘catch-up’ in KS 2, but under-performed in KS1 (as seen last year).

C.

Whereas progress in maths for other children is strongest, for PP children it is weakest, due to only 17% (as opposed to 41% for others) achieving greater depth.

Desired outcomes

 

Desired outcomes and how they will be measured

Success criteria

A.

To improve reading for enjoyment and breadth of interest and experience, by providing opportunities to share enjoyed texts, tell stories from their reading and enhance staff expertise so children recognise the multiple benefits of reading: pleasure, learning, immersion in other worlds, cultures, ideas. . .

All targeted (PP) children to demonstrate fluency in reading, before being challenged through comprehension of wider and more complex texts, that encourage child to extend their reading attainment in order to gain comprehension and knowledge from the text. Each child will access an adult that ‘shares’ their interests to then guide their text choice and celebrating the learning gained from their reading. The English lead will also work with staff to improve teaching for ‘greater depth reading’. Success will be ultimately seen in children actively choosing higher order texts while recognising that from these they will learn more.

B.

To increase progress of children in Key Stage 1 by identifying those performing notably well in one strand but not in all subjects. By providing additional support and challenge to heighten expectations in the other aspect we aim to see a balanced picture of higher performance at the end of the key stage.

 

 

To encourage parental ‘belief’ that identified PP children ‘can’ outperform peers and should continue to excel in future.

All targeted (PP) children to receive 1:1 coaching in their ‘best’ subject area so that they ‘believe’ they can achieve above the expected standard. Then the coach moves on to challenging their performance in other subjects so children recognise learning is a transferable skill and they can achieve any with effort.

 

Parent Support to identify parents of PP children outperforming their peers and share strategies that would support their child to recognise their achievement and continued expectation of success.

C

To increase the proportion of PP children achieving greater depth in Maths at the end of key stage 2 by improving the quality of teaching of higher order reasoning and problem solving. The EEF suggest that by improving practice, PP children disproportionately benefit in comparison to other children.

The Maths lead will work with staff to improve teaching for higher order reasoning and problem solving across the curriculum. Success will be seen in the proportions of all children achieving greater depth increasing, while the gap for PP children closes.

A

Further to reading, we will continue to work on the strategy from last year to improve writing performance, by extending experiences of the world (by PP children attending additional educational visits with classes other than their own), in order to have something to write about (working with a ‘writing coach’ upon their return), with improvement being seen in writing assessment using school writing tool.

All targeted (PP) children in Upper Years to engage with at least 3 additional educational visits, and thus compose 3 additional pieces of extended writing, receiving 1:1 guidance from their writing coach, in its execution and editing, and ultimately reaching expected standard for each class, confirmed at the end of each key stage.

 

Planned expenditure

Academic year

2019-20

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) To enhance staff expertise so children recognise the multiple benefits of reading.

Staff training in approaches to reading with children to broaden and deepen both staff expectations and children’s performance.

EEF recognise that fluency and comprehension strategies come first in a child’s reading development (Improving Literacy at Key Stage 2.) Thus, once these building-block are in place children are ready to improve their depth of understanding through the adventurous choice of materials.

Initial staff training; identify trial children in each cohort; reading -coach training; coach identified children.

EnglishCo

Once practitioners have had their reading-coach training, then learning conversations with children by an independent practitioner will reveal success or otherwise.  

(C) To improve the quality of teaching of higher order reasoning and problem solving

Staff training in mathematical knowledge & skills including ways to teach children strategies for solving problems and enabling pupils to develop a rich network of mathematical knowledge

EEF’s Improving Mathematics in Key Stages 2 and 3 suggests an approach to improving reasoning and problem solving, through demonstration and modelling.

Explore EEF guidance with staff; then prepare to implement guidance in practice; deliver support and training to embed new practice; sustain good implementation practices through peer observation and challenge.

MathsCo

Peer observation will indicate improvements in practice and outcomes for learners.

Total budgeted cost

£24,500

   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) To improve reading for enjoyment and breadth of interest and experience

As a pre-requisite, ensure children demonstrate fluency in reading. Challenge readers to develop their comprehension of wider and more complex texts, extending their reading experience. Each child will access an adult ‘sharing’ their interest guiding their text choice and celebrating the learning gained from their reading.

The EEF Guidance Reports on improving literacy in key stage 1 and key stage 2, provide strategies for developing reading comprehension, which will form the approach for the adult ‘sharing’ the child’s interest. However, there continues to be little research considering the idea of ‘learning to read to learn’, which this intervention seeks to address

 

 

 

Purchasing challenging texts linked to a range of studies in our curriculum; identified PP children will be encouraged to read selected texts that ‘could’ extend their knowledge in particular areas of the curriculum already studied. During and after reading the text, the adult will use the strategies from the EEF Guidance, to support comprehension as well as demonstrating the purpose of reading explicitly to the learner.

 

Subject Coords; 

CT

Programme evaluated alongside data fix in July 2020.

(B) To increase progress of children in Key Stage 1

After identifying the area in which a child has achieved ‘above average’ in EYFSP challenge child to match this performance elsewhere, by ‘proving’ if you can learn, you can learn anything.

1:1 and small group intervention is supported by EEF toolkit, while ‘self-efficacy’ (Bandura, A. Stanford, among others) is strongly supported by evidence. Making this explicit to the learner, through metacognitive strategies is also well regarded by EEF studies. In this approach the three combine to foster ‘an expectation’ of balanced achievement in all subjects.

 

Identification of the target learners and the subjects of focus for challenge; activities that support learning to learn delivered in small groups following implementation guidance.

CT

End of Key Stage performance.

(B) To encourage parental ‘belief’ that identified PP children ‘can’ outperform peers and should continue to excel in future.

Parent Support to identify parents of PP children outperforming their peers and share strategies that would support their child to recognise their achievement and continued expectation of success.

In the EEF toolkit parental involvement is suggested to have moderate evidence for moderate impact with moderate cost. However, self-efficacy is comprehensively supported (Bandura, A. Stanford, among others). While there is no evidence of parental impact with ‘offspring efficacy’, it does seem obvious, from influence studies (Melhuish, EC et al, 2008) that parents and teachers at primary age both need to support the same outcome or they will cancel out the effect.

UTL to work alongside PSCo to ensure interventions with identified parents is positively received and support action.

UTL & PSCo

Evaluate progress at end of year.

(C) To increase the proportion of PP children achieving greater depth in Maths at the end of key stage 2

To teach children strategies for problem solving and model progressive sequence of mathematical knowledge.

EEF’s Improving Mathematics in Key Stages 2 and 3 suggests an approach to improving reasoning and problem solving, through demonstration and modelling.

Explore EEF guidance with staff; introduce a range of problem solving strategies; practice strategies; make explicit to children the links in the sequences of learning of mathematical knowledge.

CT

Research Lesson Study will indicate learners attitudes and outcomes.

(A) To work on the strategy from last year to improve writing performance, by extending experiences of the world

 

After ‘additional’ educational visit child(ren) receive 1:1 or small group guidance on execution and editing from an identified writing coach, as they compose a piece of written work.

1:1 and small group intervention (interventions supported by EEF toolkit) in writing composition (any genre) through deliberate practice (effort).

 

Using an SRSD approach (EEF reporting +9 impact), the coach will guide the writer in their chosen genre to more effective practice.

English Lead and class teachers will identify most appropriate ‘writing coach’ for each PP child after visit. Coach to be deployed to work with individuals or small groups 3 times during the writing.

English Lead

Comparing end of year judgements against the whole school writing tool.

Total budgeted cost

£44,100

 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-C) To improve basic skills of oracy and language

Early identification and access to appropriate support from SALT. For those successfully completing SALT, a programme of accelerated learning to ensure their access to the curriculum matches that of peers, as measured by school tracking.

 

Accepting meta-analysis by Law (2004) gives a positive indication for phonological and expressive difficulties. Last year, children coming to the end of enhanced SALT provision were assessed out of therapy by SALT and LCP to indicate an accelerated programme to ‘cath-up’ their cohort.

After early referral to SALT, continue to undertake broad-spectrum screening after therapy to provide indicative data, which can then be used to target from a range of interventions to ‘catch-up’ with peers in ‘basic skills’.

SENco

Annually

Total budgeted cost

£6,400

Documents Available to Download

Pupil Premium Criteria (Microsoft Word Document)

Like the site? Or spotted an error? Please tell us.

Share With Others