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

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 %

67.0%

Average progress in reading

15.8

4.6

0

Average progress in writing

6.4

5.8

0

Average progress in maths

12.6

7.7

0

 

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

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

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 extended 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.

    

 

Review of expenditure

Academic Year

2017-18

    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 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.

 

Through Research Lesson Study, peer observation and other evaluative observation tools, and whole school activities, teachers and practitioners identified for themselves that they were ‘dumbing down’ expectations of the children’s lexicon. Instead of exposing children to higher order vocabulary, defined in the context of the text or orally, definitions were often either sought or given, which negates the ‘desirable difficulty’ needed for learning.

 

[6 out of 9 in Y2 achieved the expected standard in writing with 1 achieving greater depth; 4 out of 5 in Y6 achieved the expected standard in writing with 1 achieving greater depth; 5 out of 5 in Y6 achieved the expected standard in GPS test with 3 achieving with greater depth]

Children do not reveal the vocabulary they don’t understand;

teacher can’t believe that children are unable to explain the mean of common-place vocabulary; a misconception that using simple language will help children understand clearly; children’s reading books do not, on the whole, encourage learning (they build reading fluency) which then fails to engage children once they ‘can read’.

 

£6,726

(A) To improve writing proficiency

Teacher training

In book scrutiny each term, increased volume of ‘practice in writing’ was seen. However, there was an increase in teacher feedback, which continued to promote ‘next steps’ over consolidation, which resulted in repeated errors, rather than mastery.

There needs to be sufficient space in the curriculum for children to ‘work within’ their zone of proximal development to consolidate learning, rather than constantly being scaffolded beyond.

£1,584

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

Practitioner training in Robust Vocabulary Instruction.

After practitioner training, improved deployment of vocabulary definition by context alongside HFWR programme was observed in peer observation in early years.

Improved skill with embedding definitions within context of ‘new’ words requires practice, and is reliant upon experience, so direct impact on children has not been tested this year. This would be worth pursuing in future.

£1,968

   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 comprehension and use of grammatical devices in written English

Sentence combining

This was a focus of training for teachers and was used as a theme for Research Lesson Study. A sentence combining intervention was developed ‘in house’ that was then trial with a group. This small-scale trial demonstrated potential.

Teacher training surfaced the problem and drew practitioners’ attention to the significance of sentence construction. Due to the lack of an ‘off-the-shelf’ programme, significant time will be needed if the resulting intervention is to be rolled out further than the limited trial undertaken this year.

£4,412

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

Enhanced Speech & Language provision

7 children receiving PP accessed Speech & Language enhanced  provision and successfully completed therapy, as assessed by SALT which is approx. 40% of total children accessing such intervention.

 

[Of the 7 only 3 were of an age to access the reading test, and all were standardised within the 90-110 range]

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 in and out of intervention is problematic, since the assessment by SALT does not match the focuses of the EYFS curriculum, which is the means by which the need was identified by practitioners in setting.

£3,400

(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.

8 out of 9 children in Y2 in receipt of PP, benefited from a range of 10 targeted interventions. Through pre- and post-testing and attitude survey, all children demonstrated increased expectations of their own achievement.

The 7 children in Y1 in receipt of PP, benefited from a range of 8 targeted interventions. Through pre- and post-testing and attitude survey, 5 children demonstrated increased expectations of their own achievement.

 

[In Y2, 6 out of 9 achieved the expected standard in reading; 6 out of 9 achieved the expected standard in writing; 7 out of 9 achieved the expected standard in maths; with 2 children achieving greater depth in at least one subject]

 

 

For the small cost of adjustment to our menu of interventions, this proved useful as an approach for children. However, it became apparent that their self-image (I’m not as good as them) meant that even out-performance of peers was not enough to outweigh their lower expectations of themselves.

 

£12,640

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

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

Parent Support

The parents/carers of 21 children attracting PP out of a total of 32 accessing support.

While the EEF toolkit suggests that there is moderate evidence for moderate impact with a moderate cost, we evaluated whether the support provided diminishes over time or increases dependence upon our services. We found that 48% were successfully support by the service and withdrew, while 33 % remained accessing the service throughout the year and 19% returned to the service a second time during the year.

£20,628

 

 

Total expenditure

£51,358

Out-turn

£613

 

 

Summary information

Academic Year

2017-18

Total PP budget (April 2018)

£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 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.

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.

 

    

 

Planned expenditure

Academic year

2018-19

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 improve writing performance, by extending experiences of the world in order to have something to write about.

Children are selected for at least 3 additional educational visits, that best match their interests, beyond those of their class, and then compose additional pieces of extended writing in consequence.

A range of Learning Outside the Classroom (LOtC) studies indicate a positive impact, especially for disadvantaged children, from educational visits and outdoor learning. To focus the project staff involved need to understand that participation is not sufficient, for impact children need to actively engage in learning and reflect upon evidence of change.

Briefing to staff to explain rationale and approach; identify appropriate visits to match PP children’s interests and/or deficits; targeting of learning for child on visit; reflection with visit leader on shifts in learning after visit.

UTL

Briefing delivered in Au 2018, with practice monitoring until Su 2019. Review and adjust, if needed, February 2019

Total budgeted cost

£3,900

   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 writing performance, by extending experiences of the world in order to have something to write about.

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

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

(B) To improve comprehension by extending access to high quality, challenging reading materials.

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 ‘interested’ adult 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 ‘interested’ adult. However, there is no research considering the link between ensuring children learn the mechanics of reading and the need to explicitly introduced purposeful reading, 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. Whi and after reading the text, the interested adult will use the strategies from the EEF Guidance, to support comprehension and demonstrate the purpose of reading explicitly to the learner.

 

Subject Coords; 

CT

Programme evaluated alongside data fix in July 2019.

(C) To increase proportion of children achieving greater depth in a particular aspect

1:1 coaching in their ‘best’ subject area so that they ‘believe’ they can achieve above the expected standard, to gain ‘self-efficacy’ so that in future they will be resistant to the lack of expectation of themselves by others.

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 continuing high achievement.

 

Identification of the target learners and the subject in which they have the potential to excel; coaching provide by subject leads linked to their Knowledge Books.

CT; Subject Coords.

Autumn term for identification and development of Knowledge Books; Delivered from January - July

(A-C) To improve ‘basic skills’ of oracy and language as a gateway to wider and deeper learning.

 

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. 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, but without regard to performance of peers in wider learning.

Early referral to SALT; for all children 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

Each intervention from the graduated response menu will be screened and the screens will be evaluated at the end of the year.

Total budgeted cost

£29,640

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?

(C) 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

Monitor involvement through conversation with parents and child. Evaluate progress at end of year.

Total budgeted cost

£19,100

 

 

Documents Available to Download

Pupil Premium Criteria (Microsoft Word Document)

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

Share With Others