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

2015-16

Total PP budget (April 2016)

£55,280

Total number of pupils

206

Number of pupils eligible for PP

41

 

Attainment in 2016

 

Pupils eligible for PP (in Y6)

Pupils not eligible for PP (in Y6)

Pupils not eligible for PP (national)

Cohort

7

21

 

% achieving in reading, writing and maths

71

100

60

Average progress in reading

6.9

8.8

 

Average progress in writing

10.8

6.4

 

Average progress in maths

8.4

9.6

 

 

Barriers to future attainment (for pupils eligible for PP, including high ability) looking towards 2016-17

 In-school barriers

A.    

Reading was the limiting judgement for 2 PP children and hints at this being the case in future with the new raised expectations of children at the end of Year 6.

B.    

PP children overall, made less progress than other pupils in reading and maths, whereas to close gaps in attainment they need to make better progress than ‘other pupils’.

C.

No PP children in this cohort had previously been high attaining at Key Stage 1 which suggests that performance gaps needed to be addressed earlier.

Desired outcomes

 

Desired outcomes and how they will be measured

Success criteria

A.    

To improve word recognition and comprehension (as measured by standardised age scores (SAS) in reading tests in Y4-Y5); and, to improve reading proficiency and confidence (as measured by SAS at end of Y4 and Y5). In the Year 5 cohort, PP children could be potentially overlooked due to complexity of cohort.

All targeted (PP) children to at least reach 100 in age standardised scores; and, attain expected standard against NC in reading

B.    

To build fluency in phonics in Y1 & 2 (as measured by phonic screen and re-test) and basic arithmetic (Y3 & 4) (as measured by pre- and post- tests); To recover performance in number and maths (as measured by Sandwell assessment); To encourage higher attainment in the curriculum through outdoor and adventurous activities.

All targeted (PP) children to demonstrate fluency in phase 5 phonics (Y1 & Y2); basic arithmetic (Y3 & Y4); and, attain expected standard at the end of key stage 1 in maths. Access to outdoor & adventurous provision.

C.    

To improve access to reading with synthetic phonics for Early Years (as measured by pre- and post- judgements); To access timely early help to recover deficits in speech and language (as assessed by SALT)

All targeted (PP) children to demonstrate fluency in phase 3 phonics by the end of Early Years Foundation Stage; children needing to accessing speech and language therapy, recover age expectations for BLAST, SALT

A-C

To improve expertise in ‘dynamic assessment’; To encourage parental participation in child’s learning

Learning & Care Practitioners working in Y1-6 understand use of celeration charts and PIVAT assessment; 31/41 of parent(s) of children attracting PP attend parental consultations. Where available, almost all make comments on real time reporting (Tapestry) system.

    

 

Review of expenditure

Academic Year

2016-17

    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-C) To improve expertise in ‘dynamic assessment’

Staff Training for Learning Support Assistants

LCPs using PIVATs competently, as observed by SENDco and making use, where appropriate of celeration charts to track progress and inform future learning.

One-off training, while useful, needs to be monitored in practice to iron-out misconceptions before these become embedded errors in use (which would be costly for marginal gains).

£1,050

(C) To access timely early help to recover deficits in speech and language

Enhanced Speech & Language provision

8 children receiving PP accessed Speech & Language enhanced   provision and successfully completed therapy, as assessed by SALT which is approx. 50% 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. There is currently a mismatch between therapeutic and non-therapeutic data. Investigating the use of a range of learning assessments before and after intervention, may support provision.

£8,950

   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 word recognition and comprehension

The aural, read, respond, oral, write (ARROW) programme for Year 5 .

In Y5, 4/5 children attracting PP received intervention and all made accelerated progress; all children attracting PP scored 100 or above.

 

For Y4, 4/6 children attracting PP received intervention   and from SAS (GL Progress test English) 3/4 children made accelerated progress.

Evidence (Greg Brooks, 2013) supports the use of programme, and our own data would suggest the same. To improve efficient delivery of programme IT update required. Intervention will continue, responding to need, in our menu of programmes.

£1,750

High-frequency word recognition (HFWR)

In-house intervention showed progress for children with low SAS so is worth re-trying with more sophisticated monitoring and evaluation to investigate correlation.

£1,750

(A) To improve reading proficiency and confidence

Paired Reading

In Y5, 4/5 children attracting PP received intervention, from (SAS) (GL Progress test English) all made progress accelerated progress; all children attracting PP scored 100 or above

Teacher assessment, against the expectations of NC, show that targeted children all make progress, with 2/ 5 making accelerated progress

For 4/6 children attracting PP in Y4 receiving intervention, from SAS (GL Progress test English) 3/4 children made accelerated progress and 3/6 scored 100 or above.

Teacher assessment, against the expectations of NC, show that these children all make progress, with 4/ 6 making accelerated progress.

Following evidence (Greg Brooks, 2013) that suggests effectiveness, our own data suggests positive impact of intervention. Intervention will continue, responding to need, in our menu of programmes.

£4,030

Grammar: Sentence analysis & construction

In-house intervention (following EEF toolkit supported small group model) suggest a positive impact which is worthy of further investment.

£4,030

(B) To build fluency in phonics and basic arithmetic

Precision teaching

In Y1, 4/9 children attracting PP received intervention, from SAS (GL Progress test English) all made accelerated progress; 6/9 successfully achieved the phonic screen. In Y2, no child attracting PP needed re-testing this year.

In Y1, 3/9 children attracting PP received intervention, from SAS (GL- progress test maths) all made accelerated progress and 6/9 scored 100 or above.

Using three ‘useful’ interventions from the EEF toolkit: Phonics intervention, which it suggests has moderate impact for low cost with very extensive evidence; mastery, which it suggests has moderate impact for very low costs based on moderate evidence; and, small group intervention, which it suggest has moderate impact for moderate cost with limited evidence. The combination of these interventions and approaches has yielded positive results for the children targeted. This approach is now embedded in many of the interventions within school.

£5,830

(B) To recover performance in number and maths

Numbers Counts

In Y2, for the two children attracting PP that accessed intervention, Sandwell testing pre- and post- intervention demonstrated progress of 11 month and 12 month respectively on 3 month programme.

Providing intervention to the lowest performing children in the year group (as indicated by teacher assessment and SAS), resulted in only 2 children attracting PP receiving intervention. Both remained at ‘working towards’ in the end of key stage 1 SAT even though the pre- and post- test (Sandwell) had shown marked progress. Historically, we have seen very positive outcomes over-time with this programme (in line with research studies from Edge Hill), but changes in delivery and how we evaluate suggest we need to re-think this intervention.

£4,500

(B) To encourage higher attainment in the curriculum

Out door & adventurous activities

Ensured involvement for children attracting PP to match other children’s access to outdoor and adventurous activities.

While anecdotally the provision seemed successful, as suggested by the EEF toolkit (moderate evidence for moderate impact with moderate cost). We need to develop impact measures and consider alternative sustained provision of such enhancement, before possibly continuing in future.

£1,368

(C) To improve access to reading with synthetic phonics

Small-group phonics recovery

In reception, for the three children attracting PP that accessed the intervention, all improved recognition of grapheme/phoneme correspondence to demonstrate fluency in stage 3 phonics

Using three ‘useful’ interventions from the EEF toolkit: Phonics intervention, which it suggests has moderate impact for low cost with very extensive evidence; and, small group intervention, which it suggest has moderate impact for moderate cost with limited evidence. The combination of these interventions and approaches has yielded positive results for the children targeted and is worth extending.

£784

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

(A-C) To encourage participation in child’s learning

Parent Support

The parents/carers of 16/41 children attracting PP accessed support.

While the EEF toolkit suggests that there is moderate evidence for moderate impact with a moderate cost, we find that parental support to facilitate their involvement in their child’s education for children attracting PP, amounts to a disproportionate amount of our parent support provision. We now need to evaluate whether the support provided diminishes over time or increases dependence upon our services.

£15,687

 

 

Total expenditure

£52,729

Out-turn

£2,551

 

 

Summary information

Academic Year

2016-17

Total PP budget (April 2017)

£49,420 (+ £2,551) = £51,971

Total number of pupils

206

Number of pupils eligible for PP

36+1

 

Attainment in 2017

 

Pupils eligible for PP (in Y6)

Pupils not eligible for PP (in Y6)

Pupils not eligible for PP (national)

Cohort

3

26

 

% achieving in reading, writing and maths

33.3 %

77.8 %

Not available

Average progress in reading

15.8

4.6

 

Average progress in writing

6.4

5.8

 

Average progress in maths

12.6

7.7

 

 

Barriers to future attainment (for pupils eligible for PP, including high ability) looking towards 2017-18

 In-school barriers

A.

Writing was the limiting judgement for 2 pupils of which 1 did also not attain expected standard in reading. All attained expected standard in maths.

B.

Despite early intervention with speech & language therapy, and targeted interventions throughout school, pupils do not recover literacy sufficient to attain national expectations.

C.

All PP pupils in cohort were low attaining in Key Stage 1

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

D.

Typical of PP in school, the pupils with PP in this cohort had vulnerabilities beyond PP, such as SEND and Social Care

Desired outcomes

 

 

Desired outcomes and how they will be measured

Success criteria

 

A.

To comprehend and deploy an extend range of vocabulary (as measured by textual analysis of children’s writing); to improve comprehension and use of grammatical devices in written English (as measured by our Writing Assessment Tool and, for Y2 and Y6 by end of key stage test); to improve writing proficiency (as measured by Teacher Assessment against our Writing Assessment Tool, and, in Y6 using the ‘Teacher assessment framework at the end of key stage 2’ for writing).

All targeted (PP) children to reach age expected score in vocabulary strand of our writing assessment tool; to at least reach expected standard in Grammar (GPS) test at end of key stage 2; to at least reach expected standard in Writing by end of key stage 2 using Teacher assessment framework for writing’.

 

B.

To improve access to language – written and spoken – from early years onward (as assessed by SALT; and, as measured by improved SAS in GL progress test English; choice of reading materials demonstrating reading for learning rather than learning to read; and, engagement in ‘more complex’ conversation with adults)

All children accessing SALT will be screened in and out of therapy to provide indicative non-therapeutic data of impact; all targeted (PP) children to at least reach 100 in age standardised scores; analysis of children’s reading records to demonstrate reading for learning and enjoyment (curricular links and text types); pupil voice conversations with DHT and debating project outcomes.

 

C.

To intervene with children previously accessing 2-year-provision, Early Premium or PP during key stage 1 in area of learning with best attainment to heighten expectations (as measured by reaching expected standard and greater depth in Y2 SAT)

6/9 children attracting PP to reach expected standard or above with 2/9 achieving greater depth at end of Key stage 1 in at least one subject.

 

D.

To support parents and carers to ensure expectations for their child match those for others.

12/36 of parent(s) of children attracting PP work with parent support team to become involved with learning in school (eg parents posse or nursery helpers) Where available make comments on real time reporting (Tapestry) system.

 

     

 

 

Planned expenditure

Academic year

2017-18

The three headings below demonstrate how we 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-C) To train practitioners in evaluative observation

Identifying that teachers and practitioners over-compensate for lack of comprehension as demonstrated by modelling/demonstration replacing instructional comprehension, provide whole staff training

Need all staff to understand and share both the need for and solution of the intervention. After initial training, to ensure change of practice, make it an agenda item at whole staff meetings at least once each half term. Research Lesson Study has noted problem in the past and thus will be used to indicate progress in this intention.

One-off training, while useful, needs to be monitored in practice to iron-out misconceptions before these become embedded errors in use (which would be costly for marginal gains), so training will be followed-up with staff meeting time.

HT

Training delivered in Au 2017, with practice monitoring until Su 2018. Review and adjust, if needed, February 2018

(A) To improve writing proficiency

Teacher training

Ensure consistency of approach with all children; increase volume of children’s practice in writing, while maintaining the current volume of teacher feedback will ensure children have more opportunity to practice and embed learning.

At termly book scrutiny, monitor volume of writing and impact of responses to children’s learning.

DHT

Training delivered in Au 2017, with review in Book scrutiny each term.

(B) To improve access to language –written and spoken – from early years onward

Practitioner training in Robust Vocabulary Instruction.

Following ‘Bringing words to life’ approach (Beck, et al. 2013) to improve deployment of vocabulary in all instructional intervention between practitioners and children, incorporating the HFWR programme.

Guided peer observation of practice in early years.

EYL

Research and construct training/programme in Au term 2017; Staff training Jan 2018; Peer observation review used for evaluation

Total budgeted cost

£16,400

   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 comprehend and deploy an extend range of vocabulary

Small group teaching in early years from January 2018; intervention programme for small groups in Y1-6 from March 2018

EEF toolkit suggests that small groups have only marginally less impact than 1:1 intervention. Also, EEF toolkit indicates that deployment of (TAs) Practitioners is effective when trained to deliver intervention programme

Spaced observation of practitioners until competent, then continued evaluation through pupil progress.

DHT

Programme evaluated alongside data fix in July 2018.

(A) To improve comprehension and use of grammatical devices in written English

Sentence combining

Trial Programme: Building on the ‘Grammar: sentence analysis and construction programme from last year, according to the EPPI longitudinal study (The effect of grammar teaching (sentence combining) in English on 5-16 year olds ‘accuracy and quality in written composition’) ‘comes to a clear conclusion: that sentence combining is an effective means of improving the syntactic maturity of students in English between the ages of 5 and 16.’

Follow the research evidence in the construction of our programme; train practitioners to deliver intervention; monitor its efficacy in first round trial March – July 2018.

Trial Phase: UYL; HT; 1 Practitioner

On-going throughout trial

(B) To improve access to language – written and spoken – from early years onward

Enhanced Speech & Language provision

Accepting meta-analysis by Law (2004) gives a positive indication for phonological and expressive difficulties. In previous year, children in obvious need of enhanced provision accessed therapy because of assessment by SALT. Having received the intervention they were assessed out of therapy by SALT, with obvious improvement in speech.

Early referral to SALT; for all children undertake screening before and after therapy to provide indicative non-therapeutic data, which can then compare impact for children attracting PP with other children.

EYM

Each intervention will be screened and the screens will be evaluated at the end of the year.

(C) To intervene with children previously accessing 2-year-provision, Early Premium or PP during key stage 1 in area of learning with best attainment to heighten expectations

Identify ‘most relevant’ intervention for all PP children in and below key stage 1 and deliver.

1:1 and small group intervention (interventions supported by EEF toolkit) in areas of perceived success or relative strength, to change ‘mindset’ following Dweck’s approach which encourages self-belief through deliberate practice (effort).

DHT and class teachers will identify the ‘ most relevant’ intervention for each PP child in early years and key stage 1. Our 1:1 Teacher to be deployed to work with individuals or small groups

1:1 Teacher

Each intervention to be evaluated through pre- and post-testing, and data reviews at end of year

Total budgeted cost

£20,500

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) To support parents and carers to ensure expectations for their child match those for others.

Parent Support

In the EEF toolkit parental involvement is suggested to have moderate evidence for moderate impact with moderate cost. Parents will be engaged in learning activities in school where they can observe the performance of all children.

Early Years Manager, with a track record of parental support will work alongside PSCo to ensure interventions

PSCo

Monitor involvement through attendance in school and evaluate progress at end of year.

Total budgeted cost

£15,000

 

Documents Available to Download

Pupil Premium Criteria (Microsoft Word Document)

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

Share With Others