Consortiwm De Orllewin a Chanolbarth Cymru
Addressing Deprivation
Mynd i'r afael ag Amddifadedd
South West and Mid Wales Consortium
Briefing Objectives
• Develop an understanding of the national and regional
context for reducing the impact of poverty on learner
outcomes;
• Understand the current position regarding attainment of
FSM and non FSM learners and the gaps between them
across ERW;
• Be updated on the current and planned outputs of the
region’s Addressing Deprivation group;
• Have an opportunity to reflect on how potential
performance issues are identified, planned for and
evaluated at their school. This will include an over view
of the Sutton Toolkit and the use of evidence based
approaches to school improvement.
The ERW Context
• Outputs and outcomes for the use of the region’s PDG allocation for
2013-14 (PDG £8.75M*) have been submitted to Welsh Government
and these form the basis of the region’s tackling deprivation group
work.
• The region’s submission to Welsh Government outlines the proposal
to …
“Continue to reduce the gap in attainment of FSM and non FSM
learners whilst overall performance across ERW continues to
exceed the Welsh average.”
• The region formed a Tackling Deprivation Group in March of 2013;
more details on the group’s outputs follows later in the presentation.
• The region hosted a ‘Tackling Deprivation’ conference in July 2013
which saw input from Welsh Government, Estyn, regional and
national practitioners.
The National Context
•
‘Freedom from Poverty’ is Core Aim 7 of the Welsh Government and
responsibilities for public bodies are set out in Tackling Child
Poverty: Guidance and regulation for Welsh authorities.
• Tackling Poverty is at the heart of Welsh Government Policy and
Strategy.
• The Child Poverty Strategy for Wales (Feb 2011) uses the
percentage of pupils who achieve the Level 2 Inclusive threshold to
measure progress against the objectives of the strategy.
• The School Effectiveness Grant and Pupil Deprivation Grant
2013-5 document outlines the case for improving the educational
outcomes for learners who are eligible for free school meals (FSM
pupils).
Learner Outcomes Across Wales
• Overall the progress of FSM entitled learners does not
compare well with their peers;
• While the gap in attainment between e-FSM learners
and their peers in primary schools has narrowed slightly,
it has widened in secondary schools since 2008; and
• This growth in the gap in attainment highlights the need
to take targeted action.
Learner Outcomes Across Wales
• Some important trends underpin the national measures:
• In primary schools, English / Welsh is weaker than
mathematics and within English/Welsh, writing is
weaker than reading and oracy, especially for boys.
• In secondary schools, mathematics is weaker than
English/Welsh:
Learner Outcomes Across Wales
• The performance of pupils eligible for free school meals is lower than
their counterparts at all key stages and in all performance
measures;
• The gap in performance has narrowed over the last six years at KS2
and 3. However, at KS4 the gap at L2 Inclusive had widened every
year to 2010 before narrowing in the past two years; and that
• The gap in performance gets wider as pupils get older.
• Attainment gaps across Wales in 2011-12 were
KS2 CSI = 20%
KS3 CSI= 30% KS4 L2 Inclusive = 33%
Regional Attainment Gap Picture
KS4 L2 Inclusive
KS4 L2 Inclusive
Attainment Gap
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Carmarthenshire
Ceredigion
30.6
28.9
33.7
31.1
27
34
Neath PT
Pembrokeshire
Powys
Swansea
36.9
32.2
28.1
36.5
28.3
35.9
28.5
37.2
32
33
36
32
ERW
33.8
33.6
31.7
Wales
33.9
33.7
33.2
ERW 2012
Summary of L2 Inclusive
Attainment and Performance Gap
Attainment
Highest
Lowest
Gap
Highest
Lowest
FSM Group 1 70.4
20
FSM Group 1
47
12
FSM Group 2 63.2
13.3
FSM Group 2
63
6
FSM Group 3 57.6
12.5
FSM Group 3
44
2
FSM Group 4 41.7
11.9
FSM Group 4
28
7
FSM Group 5 31.3
11.8
FSM Group 5
35
-1
Summary of KS2 CSI attainment and gap
ERW 2012
Attainment
Highest
Lowest
Gap
Highest
Lowest
FSM Group 1
100
33.3
FSM Group 1
54
-33
FSM Group 2
100
20
FSM Group 2
61
-25
FSM Group 3
100
42.86
FSM Group 3
57
-33
FSM Group 4
100
25
FSM Group 4
55
-33
FSM Group 5
100
20
FSM Group 5
59
-77
What does the gap mean in terms of learning?
• By the age of 3, being in poverty makes a difference
equivalent to 9 months development in school readiness
• More than 1 in 10 children lack the tools to benefit from
education before they start school
• A reading age of < 9 years prevents access to the
secondary curriculum
• At each stage of compulsory education the performance
gap widens
• These children are more affected by ‘summer learning
loss’
What does the gap mean in terms of learning?
•
Pupils may have lower self esteem and confidence than
their more affluent peers
•
Pupils may lack the necessary skills to be able to fully
participate in decision making
•
Pupils may be less well nourished
•
Pupils are more likely to truant or be excluded from
school
•
Pupils may have parents less likely to be able to support
their learning – both in and outside the school
12
Within the classroom, the 30% of children experiencing
poverty are more likely to:
• not have pens, pencils, pencil cases
• have no or an incomplete school uniform, PE kit, school
bag etc
• be excluded from peers’ birthday parties
• have issues with getting involved in OSHL / Enrichment
• be affected by a lack of enriching experiences in holiday
time
• find school trips difficult for lots of reasons
• have less social capital
• have general issues around food, health and personal
presentation
13
Regional Support for Schools
The region’s Addressing Deprivation Group is focussing on the
development of a toolkit for schools which will include
– The identification and profiling of schools in ERW in each FSM
group whose data proves that FSM learner outcomes have
improved;
– A tool to support the projection of potential performance issues
with FSM learners and allows schools to objectively measure the
progress of this group of learners;
– A benchmarking tool to allow schools to contextualise the
performance of FSM learners in their schools;
– An introduction to the Sutton Toolkit and how it can
be used to design targeted interventions;
Strategies for Addressing the Gap in Attainment
Task:
Discuss the strategies identified and from your
experience rank them in order of their potential
effectiveness.
What helps to close the gap?
• High quality teaching
• Tiers of provision
• Working beyond the classroom ( including
working with families
• Addressing social emotional and wellbeing
needs
• High challenge (with low stress )
• Planned additional small group provision
• Increasing personalised interventions
What helps to close the gap?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Effective Feedback
Meta cognition and self regulation strategies
Peer tutoring / peer assisted learning
One to one tutoring
Effective homework / Study Support
ICT that promotes creative thinking
After School Programmes / Effective enrichment
Working with parents
Summer learning programmes
Improving well being / emotional resilience
Early intervention
(Sutton Trust 2011/12 )
The Sutton Toolkit
• A requirement outlined in the PDG guidance document is the need
to develop evidence based approaches to targeted learner support
and the region’s toolkit will outline the way in which the Sutton
Toolkit could be used. In essence, schools could project potential
performance issues, identify contributory factors and then refer to
the toolkit for the interventions which have proven to be the most
effective and / or provide best value for money.
Using the Sutton Trust approach to support and
measure the impact of targeted interventions
GENERAL QUESTIONS
1. WHAT DID THE SCHOOL WANT TO ACHIEVE WITH
ITS PDG FUNDING?
2. HOW DOES IT RELATE TO THE SCHOOL’S
PRIORITIES?
3. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THERE?
4.
HOW WILL YOU KNOW IT WORKED?
Using the Sutton Trust approach to support and
measure the impact of targeted interventions
PREPARATION:
1.WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE THROUGH THE
PDG?
2.WHAT INTERVENTION IS THE SCHOOL IS PUTTING
IN PLACE?
3HOW WILL IT SPECIFICALLY IMPACT ON FSM
PUPILS?
4HOW WILL IT CLOSE THE GAP BETWEEN FSM AND
FSM AND NON- FSM WHILST THE SCHOOL
CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN IMPROVEMENT
FOR BOTH GROUPS?
DETAILED QUESTIONS
5. HOW WILL YOU MEASURE ANY IMPROVEMENTS
THAT YOU HAVE MADE THROUGH USING THE PDG?
6. HOW WILL YOU KNOW THAT THE PDG
INTERVENTION YOU PUT IN PLACE HAS ADDED
VALUE TO THE FSM PUPILS?
7. HOW WILL YOU MEASURE THE REDUCTION IN
ATTAINMENT/ACHIEVEMENT GAP BETWEEN FSM
AND NON FSM WHILST MAINTAINING
AND IMPROVING PERFORMANCE TRENDS
FOR BOTH GROUPS?
DETAILED QUESTIONS
IMPLEMENTATION:
1. WHAT WILL THE IMPACT OF THE INTERVENTION BE
MEASURED AGAINST? (YOUR BASELINE MEASURE?)
2. HOW WILL YOU DELIVER THE INTERVENTION?
3. HOW WILL YOU RECORD THE PLANNED DELIVERY OF YOUR
INTERVENTION?
4. HOW WILL YOU RECORD WHAT IS HAPPENING
THROUGHOUT THE DELIVERY OF THE INTERVENTION?
5. WHEN AND HOW WILL THE IMPACT OF THE INTERVENTION
BE MEASURED?
DETAILED QUESTIONS
ANALYSIS AND REPORTING:
1. HOW WILL THE RESULTS RECORD THE IMPACT OF THE
INTERVENTION?
2. HOW WILL IT SHOW VALUE ADDED FOR PUPILS ON FSM?
3. WHO WILL HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE IMPACT OF PDG
FUNDED INTERVENTIONS ?
4.
HOW WILL THE RESULTS BE SHARED?
And finally …
The Independent newspaper ran two articles at the start of September
on ‘learner outcomes’ (copies are in your packs) • The first noted that 25% of learners were now receiving private
tuition; and
• The second noted that the highest levels of under attainment were in
boys in receipt of FSM.
For further thought and discussion …
• Which learners are most likely to be accessing private tuition?
Which learners are least likely?
• Knowing what we know about the ‘gender gap’ in performance, to
what extent could the under attainment of FSM pupils be attributed
to boys rather than all FSM learners?
Could this be the case in your school?