The Pupil Premium
How schools are spending the
funding effectively to maximise
achievement
Stoke-on-Trent Governors
Tuesday 14 January 2014
Angela Westington Senior HMI
Purpose of session
 To raise governors’ awareness of educational
outcomes in Stoke-on-Trent, especially of
pupils eligible for Pupil Premium
 To update governors on Ofsted’s surveys on
how schools have been using the Pupil
Premium
 To raise governors’ awareness of LA and
school Raise on Line and DfE LA interactive
tool (LAIT)
West Midlands: Primary FSM quintiles
FSM
Quintiles
Low %
High
%
Educational outcomes in Stoke-on-Trent 2013
EYFS:

52% of children reached good level of development by end of Reception
compared to 50% in West Midlands and 52% nationally.

60% of children reached expected point of development in early reading
compared to 60% in region and 61% nationally. But, inequality gap is
highest in region and much higher than nationally.
Year 1 phonic check 2013 LA RoL
Year 1 phonic check DfE LAIT
Key Stage 1 outcomes 2013 LA RoL
Gap between FSM and non FSM at age 7 Stoke-on-Trent
Key Stage 2 outcomes 2013 LA RoL
Gap between FSM and non FSM at age 11
in Stoke-on-Trent
Gap between FSM and non FSM at age 11
in Stoke-on-Trent
Percentage of students gaining 5+ A*C GCSEs including
English and mathematics or equivalent
Outcomes at 16 for students in receipt of
FSM
Performance of WM local authorities
in secondary mathematics
Trends over time
Analysis completed December 2013
Proportion of students making expected progress in mathematics within
each WM local authority over the past 5 years
75.0
70.0
Birmingham
Coventry
65.0
Percentage of students
Dudley
Herefordshire, County of
Sandwell
60.0
Shropshire
Solihull
Staffordshire
55.0
Stoke-on-Trent
Telford and Wrekin
50.0
Walsall
Warwickshire
Wolverhampton
45.0
Worcestershire
England
40.0
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Strengths in mathematics

Where students consistently achieve well in mathematics
compared with students in maintained schools in England:
 Birmingham
 Worcestershire
 Warwickshire

Where students now achieve in line with students in
maintained schools in England, and are improving:
 Solihull
 Wolverhampton
Areas of concern

Where students have in the past achieved in line with
students in maintained schools in England, but are now
declining:
 Shropshire
 Herefordshire
 Staffordshire
Weaknesses in mathematics

Where students consistently underachieve compared with
students in maintained schools in England:






Coventry (gap narrowing, improving)
Dudley (gap widening, declining)
Sandwell (gap narrowing, improving)
Stoke on Trent (gap narrowing, improving)
Telford and Wrekin (inconsistent)
Walsall (gap narrowing, improving)
2012/2013
Current position in WM secondary schools
Current position in WM secondary schools
Ma better than En
Shropshire
Strong core
Birmingham
Solihull
Warwickshire
Wolverhampton
Worcestershire
Pupil Premium
The Pupil Premium: two Ofsted
surveys

In September 2012, Ofsted published a report based on the
views of 262 school leaders gathered through inspections and
telephone interview questionnaires conducted by Her Majesty’s
Inspectors.

In the autumn term 2012, Ofsted visited 68 primary and
secondary schools to see how effectively the schools were
spending the funding to maximise achievement. A good practice
report was published 11 February 2013.
Some key findings from our
September report

School leaders commonly said that they were using the funding
to maintain or enhance existing provision rather than to put in
place new initiatives.

Schools did not routinely disaggregate the Pupil Premium
funding from their main budget, especially when receiving
smaller amounts.

In some schools it was clear to inspectors that the spending was
not all focused on the needs of the specific groups for whom it
was intended.

Inspectors saw little evidence of a strong focus on the Pupil
Premium by governors or management committees.
What were schools spending the
Pupil Premium on?
Based on multiple answers provided by 119 school leaders responding to the telephone survey and 142 school
leaders responding to additional questions at inspection.
Characteristics of successful
approaches
Successful approaches (September
survey) – schools…


ring-fenced the funding for the target group


Analysed thoroughly which pupils were underachieving and why

understood the importance of ensuring that all day-to-day teaching met the needs
of each student, rather than relying on interventions to compensate for
never confused eligibility for the Pupil Premium with low ability, but focused on
supporting disadvantaged pupils to achieve the highest levels
drew on research evidence and their own and others’ experience to allocate the
funding to the activities that were most likely to have an impact on achievement
teaching that is less than good

used achievement data frequently to check whether interventions or techniques
were working and made adjustments accordingly

made sure that support staff (particularly TAs) were highly trained and understood
their role in helping pupils to achieve

ensured that a designated senior leader had a clear overview of how the funding
was being allocated and the difference it was making to the outcomes for pupils
Successful approaches continued..

all teachers knew which pupils were eligible for the Pupil

discussions about pupils eligible for the Pupil Premium included in

governors fully involved in the decision making and evaluation

schools could demonstrate the impact of each aspect of their
spending on the outcomes for pupils, through careful monitoring
and evaluation.
Premium and took responsibility for accelerating their progress
performance management meetings
process
Characteristics of less
successful approaches
Where schools were less successful in spending the
funding, they tended to…..






lack clarity about the intended impact of the spending

plan their Pupil Premium spending in isolation to their other planning; for example, it
was not part of the school development plan

compare their performance to local rather than national data, which suppressed
expectations if they were in a low-performing local authority

compare the performance of their pupils who were eligible for free school meals with
other eligible pupils nationally, rather than all pupils, again lowering
expectations
spend the funding indiscriminately on teaching assistants, with little impact
not monitor the quality and impact of interventions well enough
not have a good performance management system for support staff
not have a clear audit trail for where the funding had been spent
focus on pupils attaining the nationally expected level at the end of the key stage but
did not to go beyond these expectations, so some more-able eligible pupils
underachieved.
Where schools were less successful in
spending the funding, they ...

did not focus their pastoral work on
outcomes for pupils and did not have any
evidence to show whether the work had
or had not been effective

did not have governors involved in
making decisions about the Pupil
Premium, or challenging the way in which
it was allocated.
Case studies: some
examples of
approaches that had a
good impact on
outcomes for pupils
A coherent strategy from the
outset

A named governor was nominated to have an oversight of
the Pupil Premium and the full governing body was involved in
making decisions about spending.

Senior leaders and governors wrote a policy for spending the
Pupil Premium, which laid out the principles and explained how
the impact of the spending would be evaluated. The finance
manager was closely involved in tracking the allocation and
could therefore always account clearly for each part of the
spending.

The school set very clear success criteria for each action
they took. Where they employed staff they knew exactly what
they aimed to achieve from this.
Pupil Premium | 36
Identifying the levers for
improvement

The aims of specific interventions such as
one to one tuition and small group work were
clearly set, using data - the school defined
how much the intervention course was
expected to accelerate each pupil’s
progress, and how this progress should
continue for the rest of the year.

Under the leadership of an assistant
headteacher appointed especially for this
purpose, the school closely analysed both
national research and local knowledge
about what makes a difference in narrowing the
attainment gap.
Add presentation title to master slide | 37
Identifying the levers for
improvement

It drew on this information to focus its strategy on the ten
activities that it believes make the biggest difference:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Data tracking that identifies the gaps
High profile of pupils eligible for free school meals
Vertical tutoring
Effective teaching and learning
Strong careers information, advice and guidance
Literacy support
Targeted support
Engagement and enjoyment
Good attendance
Good facilities for supported self-study
Pupil Premium | 38
Ensuring that teaching assistants
help to improve achievement

The headteacher read the Sutton Trust report, which
caused him to reflect on the role of teaching
assistants in the school.

He concluded that although the assistants were
providing valuable emotional support to many pupils,
and were very good at keeping pupils on task, they
were not always being maximised to support
learning.
Pupil Premium | 39
Ensuring that teaching assistants
help to improve achievement

The headteacher decided to extend the
assistants’ hours, using a small amount
of Pupil Premium funding. This allows
them to review the day’s learning
with teachers, help to identify
gaps in pupils’ knowledge and
understanding and to be well
informed about the learning
planned for the next day.

The headteacher also audited their
skills and put in place a range of
individualised training, according to
need.
Add presentation title to master slide | 40
Helping more-able pupils to
reach their potential

The school recognised that just aiming for pupils to reach ‘age
related expectations’ was not aspirational enough, particularly for
some of the more-able pupils. The school carefully identified the
factors that were preventing pupils from accelerated
progress and used Pupil Premium funding to help to remove
these barriers. For example:



one-to-one support from a learning mentor was specifically
focused on a small group of able pupils who lacked confidence
or social skills to build their self-esteem
an additional teaching group was established to extend the
science skills of more-able pupils.
speech and language programmes were targeted to pupils
whose progress was being hampered by weak oracy skills,
despite their obvious understanding of their learning.
Pupil Premium | 41
Focusing on attendance

The school identified that for a small number of pupils, poor
attendance was contributing significantly to their
underachievement.

The school decided to appoint a parent support adviser and
to ensure that this person was well qualified and
experienced. Using Pupil Premium funding, they managed to
appoint a former education welfare officer. This member of staff
has a caseload of about 20 pupils at any one time, and works
with pupils and their parents to solve various issues that are
preventing the pupils from attending.

In addition, the school has used the funding to set up a ‘welcome
to school’ room, staffed by two teaching assistants, as a halfway
house for pupils who are finding it difficult to return to school full
time after long term absence or sporadic attendance.
Pupil Premium | 42
A fully involved governing body

A specific committee took on the responsibility for monitoring
and evaluating the impact of the funding.

They know how much of the money has been spent, and on what.
Governors from this committee take part in learning walks to see
the impact of specific aspects of spending, as well as
scrutinising data on the attainment of eligible pupils.

Pupil Premium funding is also a regular standing item at the
finance committee’s meetings.

Information about the school’s spending is published on the
school’s website, and governors check that this is complete and
accurate.
Pupil Premium | 43
Focused, frequent monitoring
and evaluation

The achievement of pupils who attract Pupil Premium funding is
carefully tracked so senior leaders know where there are gaps in
achievement.

Teachers check and report on the progress of this group of
pupils through regular discussions in teams and with senior leaders
about pupils’ achievement.

The way in which eligible pupils are achieving is a part of
performance management discussions for all staff.

Clear reports to governors from the headteacher mean governors
have an accurate understanding of the difference that the
school’s actions are making to pupils who attract Pupil Premium
funding.

Governors ask well-focused questions about what the evaluation is
showing and what needs to be done differently.
Pupil Premium | 44
What will
inspectors be
looking for?
Before the inspection inspectors must use all
available evidence to develop an initial picture of
the school’s context and performance.
This will include:




The categorisation of pupils eligible for FSM changed in 2012. Pupils are classed as FSM if they have been eligible for and
claiming FSM at any time in the last 6 years.
Data from RaiseOnline
Previous report
Parent View
Information available on
the school’s website
How well did FSM pupils attain last year
in comparison to other pupils in the
school and nationally?
How much progress did FSM pupils make
last year compared to other pupils in the
school and against the national picture?
How well have FSM pupils been performing
over time? Is attainment rising? Is the
attainment gap narrowing?
When judging achievement inspectors must take
account of the learning and progress across year
groups of different groups of pupils currently on the
roll of the school

Evidence gathered by inspectors during the course of the inspection may
include:

the school’s own records of pupils’ progress, including the progress of pupils
who attend off-site alternative provision for all or part of the week, and the
progress of pupils for whom the pupil premium or the Year 7 literacy and
numeracy catch-up premium provide support (School inspection handbook,
p31)

They consider Difference in achievement between those for whom the pupil



gaps in attainment, in particular in English and mathematics
premium provides support and other pupils in the school, including:
differences in progress from similar starting points.
Gaps in attainment must include the difference between the average points
scores in each of English and mathematics in national assessments at the end of
Key Stage 2, and at GCSE at the end of Key Stage 4, as explained in Subsidiary
guidance. (School Inspection handbook, p33)
Inspectors must examine the impact of leaders at
all levels, including governors, and evaluate how
efficiently and effectively the school is managed.

the effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation and the extent
to which it is shared with governors – this includes monitoring
and evaluation of:

the quality of teaching and the achievement and progress of all
groups of pupils, including those for those for whom the pupil
premium provides support, relative to other schools nationally
(School inspection handbook, p46)


Inspectors should also consider how well governors:
use the pupil premium and other resources to overcome
barriers to learning, including reading, writing and
mathematics. (School inspection handbook, p49)
The Pupil Premium: analysis and
challenge tools for schools

This booklet accompanies Ofsted’s Pupil Premium report
(February 2013).

It contains a series of tools that schools can use to help them
to analyse where there are gaps in achievement between pupils
who are eligible for the Pupil Premium and those who are not,
and to plan the action they need to take.
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupil-premium-analysis-andchallenge-tools-for-schools
The Pupil Premium: analysis and challenge tools for schools
The Pupil Premium: analysis and challenge tools for schools
Angela Westington, Senior HMI
angela.westington@ofsted.gov.uk