PUPIL PREMIUM REPORT MAY 2015
Pupil premium report as an outcome of the Pupil Premium Panel work carried out over
Term 1 and 2.
What did our last June 2014 inspection ask us to do?


Ensure that all teachers use school information to identify these students and to plan
challenging work, particularly in mathematics.
Share the effective practice seen in some departments more widely across the
school and provide a detailed breakdown of how the pupil premium is spent and the
impact of this money on the progress of these students.
What did our data show us in September 2014?

Our pupil premium and non- pupil premium gap had narrowed significantly in English
and Maths to reach below the national for English and to meet the national divides
for Maths. However our 5 A – C figure divide is still above the national.
Disadvantaged
pupils
Number of Pupils
Other
pupils
34
110
Percentage of Pupils
24%
76%
Percentage achieving grades A*-C in English and maths
GCSEs
32%
61%
Percentage achieving 5+ A*-C GCSEs (or equivalent)
including English and maths GCSEs
29%
60%
68%
76%
55%
76%
Best 8 VA measure
967.8
1010.5
Best 8 VA lower 95% confidence limit for disadvantaged
pupils
942.1
996.8
Best 8 VA upper 95% confidence limit for disadvantaged
pupils
993.6
1024.2
7.8
8.9
265.9
322.8
Percentage of pupils making expected progress in English
Percentage of pupils making expected progress in maths
Average entries per pupil - all qualifications
Average point score per pupil (best 8) - all qualifications
PUPIL PREMIUM REPORT MAY 2015
The Governing Body agreed to appoint members to act as the critical friend in supporting
Turnford to ensure that the school and Governing Body have clear and thorough processes
in place.
What work have we completed towards the Ofsted targets for Pupil premium?
Target 1:

To ensure that all teachers use school information to identify these students and to
plan challenging work, particularly in mathematics.
What method did we use to evaluate the best spend for the Pupil Premium money across
the school?
Since 2013 whole school systems now track pupil premium students against non- pupil
premium. In all data collections these students are identified and their progress monitored
heavily.



At key stage 3 we target Pupil Premium attendance and reading ages are targeted.
Alongside this each year group head selects a cohort of vulnerable students who are
not making progress to target and support. These “jack pot” groups are supported
with a series of different interventions included in our table below.
For year 10 and 11 all vulnerable groups are tracked individually and strategies put in
place to raise attainment of these groups in all subject areas.
Using our analysis from last year a number of subjects have trialled the strategy of
reducing classes sizes and separating girls and boys in key pupil premium groups as
this was identified as key to the success of English in closing the gap last year.
How successful has this been? Please see our appendix C our presentation on our current
data. Overall Inconsistency continues to exist between pp and non pp however when the
multiple factor is removed, students are far more likely to succeed. I need to seek clarity in
the data of this not just go on case studies) What does this mean for supporting our multiple
deprivation students can we do more? Can we be more effective? It may support our
budget spend?
PUPIL PREMIUM REPORT MAY 2015
Target 2:

To evaluate spend and interventions for disadvantaged pupils to ensure they are
having expected impact and are cost effective.
In order to meet this target a Pupil Premium Panel was set up with the following remit:



Support the school to identify clear methods for evaluating how best to spend the
Pupil Premium money across the school.
Ensure that our decisions on how to spend this budget are cost effective.
Support the school to annually review its spend to maintain cost effectiveness whilst
recognising different cohorts have different needs.
What method did we use to evaluate the best spend for the Pupil Premium money across
the school?

The school publishes every year its spend on pupil PP A. The table below
acknowledges that a significant proportion of our Pupil Premium students have
additional vulnerabilities, SEND and or EAL and therefore a substantial proportion of
Pupil Premium money has in the past been allocated to support for SEND, the
Positive Change Programme and or EAL
Table outlining in Sept 2014 the % of students with multi vulnerabilities as a % of our
overall pupil premium students in each year group.
Year 7
59%





Year 8
46%
Year 9
44%
Year 10
30%
Year 11
47%
Year 12
50%
Year 13
25%
Using Sims we identified all the interventions logged for 2013 and 2014 in place for
pupil premium students and created a list.
Rachel then calculated the number of students who were allocated PP the number of
interventions, the hours and spend on each intervention and the number of students
benefiting from these interventions. See appendix 2 spreadsheet. This enabled us to
identify the cost of each intervention and overall total cost.
We divided these intervention costs in categories and followed the Sutton Trust
remit of assigning them £ signs for each intervention.
We then met with the key individuals involved in assigning interventions to discuss
whether it was possible to measure impact on each intervention, and if so how
would they judge each impact. This proved an invaluable discussion although
quantifying a number of these interventions is not possible.
Each intervention was then assigned a * impact measure.
PUPIL PREMIUM REPORT MAY 2015

Finally the list of interventions were highlighted to show cost benefit where the
impact was ***. Any intervention that had more £ than * was highlighted as having
limited impact.
What have we learnt from this research?




We believe we currently invest more in interventions and support for our students
than we currently receive.
Our tracking systems have highlighted our pupil premium and staff and subject areas
are far more aware of them and tracking and intervening where gaps appear.
Our multiple vulnerabilities remain a high % of our pupil premium in almost every
year group. This is the hardest group of students to move forward and requires
significant and potentially more investment than we currently receive. They
consume time within the school.
One to one and small group interventions with a specific purpose have the greatest
impact on students and are the most cost effective. External interventions are having
impact.
What questions do we need to ask?




If you are only a PP student are you receiving enough input and spend to make a
difference or are the multiple vulnerability students consuming their spend?
Is the subject intervention enough for the PP students without additional
vulnerabilities?
Are we learning enough and sharing good practice between subjects who have
reduced the gap and those that haven’t. How do we reduce variation?
How do we measure readiness to learn and should this be a measure of progress as
for our multiple vulnerabilities. This is what we are using the PP money to support?
How successful have we been this year in closing the gap?
Appendix D data presentation.