Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/highfiel/public_html/wp-content/plugins/members/includes/functions.php on line 21 Pupil Premium — Highfield

Pupil Premium

The Pupil Premium is an additional amount of money given to schools in addition to their main budget. Every school receives a fixed amount of money for all pupils meeting certain criteria. The main criterion is eligibility for free school meals at any point over the child’s time in Primary School.

The money is provided to schools so that we can further raise attainment and progress for this group of pupils. Our allocated funding this year for 2016/17 is likely to be £30000.

To see how we are planning to use this funding this year and our review of last year, take a look at the action plan below:

 

 

Pupil premium strategy statement: Highfield CE Primary School

 

  1. 1.   Summary information
School Highfield CE Primary
Academic Year 2016/17 Total PP budget £33250 Date of most recent PP Review July 2016
Total number of pupils 308 Number of pupils eligible for PP 23 (8%) Date for next internal review of this strategy Jan 2017

 

  1. 2.   Current attainment as of end of 2016*

*subject to possible change from dfe prior to performance tables publication

   
 

Pupils eligible for PP (your school)

Pupils edible for PP (national average)

Pupils  not eligible for PP (Highfield

Pupils  not eligible for PP (National Average)

% achieving expected standard or above in reading, writing (TA) and maths at the end of KS2

40% Combined KS2 – 5 pupils  

38%

78%

60%

KS2 Reading Test

Reading – 60%

 

52%

83%

72%

KS2 Maths Test

Maths – 60%

 

56%

94%

75%

KS2 GPS Test

GPS – 100%

60%

94%

78%

% making GLD in Early Years

100%

EYFS – 1 pupil

Not known

80%

Not known

% Achieving expected standard of above in reading, writing and maths at the end of KS1.

25% combined

 

Reading – 75%

Writing 25%

Maths – 50%

KS1 – 4 pupils

46% combined

Reading – 62%

Writing – 51%

Maths – 59%

83% combined

Reading – 98%

Writing 85%

Maths 93%

64% combined

 

Reading – 77%

Writing 69%

Maths 75%

Additional Notes around PP Attainment (2016 figures):

Year 1 phonic screen – 1 eligible PP child achieved 100% pass rate

Year 2 eligible PP pupils (100% pass rate on Year 2 screening

3 out of 5 children in KS2 PP group (60%)joined us in the junior department. One child only joined us in Year 6.

 

 

 

  1. 3.   Barriers to future attainment (for pupils eligible for PP including high ability)
Data sources that can help you identify barriers to attainment include: RAISEonline; the EEF Families of Schools database; FFT Aspire; staff and pupil consultation; attendance records; recent school Ofsted reports; and Ofsted guidance
 In-school barriers (issues to be addressed in school, such as poor oral language skills)
  1. A.    
 Reception pupils come from a diverse range of backgrounds and settings. A number of children enter with a poor level of English proficiency. This slows reading progress in subsequent years as well as resulting in weaker outcomes for communication, language and literacy early learning goals as a cohort.
  1. B.    
Core literacy and numeracy skills of PP children are  predominantly lower than non-disadvantaged peers.  This prevents sustained high achievement in Key Stage 2.
C. A number of PP children lack independence and are still developing learning to learn skills such as resilience and making links with earlier learning which can minimise momentum for learning. This is especially true for PP children that have joined the school beyond Year R and have not benefitted from being immersed in a Building Learning Power culture for as long as other children in the school have.
 External barriers (issues which also require action outside school, such as low attendance rates)
D. A minority of PP children who are EAL are taken out of school for extended leave to return to home countries. English proficiency during this time changes and gains that have been made in literacy/English learning can be lost.

 

 

  1. 4.   Outcomes
  Desired outcomes and how they will be measured Success criteria
  1. A.    
Improve how information from settings/parents on entry to school is used so that the language rich environment can promote English appropriately from the outset. Pupils eligible for PP in Reception class make rapid progress by the end of the year specifically in relation to the Early Learning Goal of Communication, Language and Literacy.
  1. B.    
Ensure that core literacy and numeracy skills of PP children improve rapidly to diminish the difference between non disadvantaged peers and promote sustained achievement and progress in Key Stage 2. Pupils eligible for PP identified clearly on closing the gap plans. Interventions include both timely intervention in class as well as effective follow up to reinforce core writing skills.
  1. C.    
For PP children to develop their BLP muscles and independence/self-regulation in relation to their targets for learning. PP children to be able to talk about BLP and how it has influenced and improved their learning especially their resilience and resourcefulness (making links)
  1. D.    
Reduction of the academic impact of extended (unauthorised) leave for families returning to overseas. All PP children achieved at least 95% attendance. Where overseas holidays do go ahead, children and parents given advice on how to maintain and sustain English learning as part of the expectation of the school (linked to home learning policy)

 

 

  1. 5.   Planned expenditure
Academic year 2016/17
How we are using the pupil premium to improve classroom pedagogy, provide targeted support and support whole school strategies.
  1.     i.   Quality of teaching and learning for all
Desired outcome Chosen action / approach (es) What is the evidence and rationale for this choice? How will you ensure it is implemented well? Staff lead When will you review implementation?
Talk for writing and to promote oracy is evident as a key tool for teachers to use from Year R onwards SEF team action research centred on the impact of increased talk on oracy and written skills.All staff to receive a summary of this action research to inform their own professional development.Staff training on high quality Year R practice (Bregg Conference October 2016)High quality guided reading for all pupils on a daily basis

 

 

(Sutton Tool Kit) focus of Oral Intervention includes: Targeted reading aloud and discussing books with young childrenExplicitly extending pupils’ spoken vocabulary related to topics and actively encouraging them to use this in their own words. The use of structured questioning to develop reading comprehension”.High quality Book talk as well as talk to rehearse writing ideas is crucial to develop vocabulary and share understanding. The SEf writing group are focusing on increased verbal articulacy for writing in order to build and sentence high quality sustained sentences for writing. Use SEF team meetings to launch action research and share outcomes/best practice across the school.Year R staff to attend Bregg Conference – October 2016 and disseminate good practice within team. 

 

All SLT members to monitor and promote high quality guided reading practices for all pupils.

 

 

 

 

SEF teamYear R and Leader – 

 

 

 

Jan 2017Then July 2017£150 cost
B. Improved progress for  PP children in relation to diminishing the differences for core literacy and numeracy skills as a result of high quality feedback for learning. To ensure that written and verbal feedback from teachers makes a difference to learningFor children to be trained as effective peer coaches to support learningFor children to be given opportunity to regularly self-evaluate their learning in relation to key target steps. We want to invest some of the PP in longer term change which will help all pupils. Many different evidence sources, e.g. John Hattie /Austin’s Butterfly Think Piece suggest high quality feedback is an effective way to improve attainment, and it is suitable as an approach that we can embed across the school.The approach will focus on both teacher-pupil feedback as well as pupil-pupil feedback. Looking at Learning week will focus on how well feedback is given to children both in books and orally within lessons.Coaching and feedback progression identified and reviewed with staff to ensure relevant expectationsEmily Hughes to be released to support the training of children as coaches for reading but also the promotion of high quality feedback in books and lessons 

PPA time to be used to regularly look at and review the impact of verbal and written feedback from coaches and peers.

Deputy Headteacher (Assessment lead)Phase leadersEH for specific remit Jan 2017Release time for EH – £2000
  1. PP children who lack BLP skills to develop these well to support their independence and self-regulation skills.
BLP to be promoted by all staff and known by PP children.PP children to be nudged and celebrated for demonstrating resilience in learning and be able to talk to about how they are improving in their learning by applying their BLP skills Meta-cognition and self-regulationHigh impact for very low cost, based on extensive evidence.(source John Hattie: Visible learning and the EDF Toolkit)The work of Guy Claxton (Building Learning Power) has been central to the school culture. The meta-cognition has been well documented through qualitative data over time in the school. When children join us, we have noted key barriers to learning as they have usually come from settings where the BLP emphasis is not prevalent. Monitoring through looking at learning weeksInset Training on BLP for all staffBLP skills celebrated in assemblies and class. 

BLP skills referenced to parents/carers

SLT and all teachers June 2017

Total budgeted cost

2150

 

 

  1.    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. Improved oral language skills in Year R – 6 Narrative Therapy in Infant and Junior departments used for named children to extend vocabulary and oral sequential story telling.Daily readers identified for additional book talk with trained adults and peer coaches 

 

 

Some of the students need targeted support to catch up. This is a programme which has been independently evaluated by the Schools Speech and Language professionals and shown to be effective.High quality book talk is central (EDF Toolkit) to understanding and improved oracy. Organise timetable to ensure staff delivering provision have sufficient preparation and delivery time.SENCO to oversee the successful implementation of Narrative Therapy and the impact of this on nominated children.Year ¾ leader to train peers to be effective book coaches and Phase leaders along with SENCO to monitor effective deployment within guided reading sessions. EH Phase Leader Year ¾2 x Narrative therapy TA – infant dept and junior deptSENCO Jun 2017Narrative therapy – 2 sessions a week£2500
B. Improved progress for PP pupils identified on closing the gap plans – maths Weekly small group sessions in maths with experienced teacher to provide pre-teaching and warm up to concepts being taught via QFT in classRobust closing the gap plans established based on analysis of data in relation to specific target steps that need to be addressed for individuals and groups across the school.. 

Extend contract for additional TA for an additional year

Increase

We want to provide extra support to maintain high attainment. Small group interventions with highly qualified staff have been shown to be effective, as discussed in reliable evidence sources such as Visible Learning by John Hattie and the EEF Toolkit.Pre-teaching will allow more warming up of concepts in maths.  Careful analysis took place in the summer  which will allow interventions to centre on which target steps to close gaps on over the course of the year.Additional emphasis on pictorial and concrete teaching in mathematics will be driven via the SEF team action plan strategy. Extra teaching time and preparation time paid for out of PP budget, not sought on a voluntary basis.Impact overseen by maths co-ordinator.Teaching assistant (TA) and assessed by phase leadersEngagement with parents and pupils before intervention begins to address any concerns or questions about the additional sessions at parents evening.

 

English, SENCO and Assessment Leads to create and agree intervention plan foci Jan 20174 afternoons of TA time£5000 

2 afternoons of Upper threshold teacher time

 

£6500

 

 

Additional member of TA staff – £9000

 

 

B. Improved progress for PP pupils identified on closing the gap plans – literacy Weekly small group sessions in sentence level work with experienced teacher and trained TA  to provide additional support to meet the target steps for sentence level work.Robust closing the gap plans established based on analysis of data in relation to specific target steps that need to be addressed for individuals and groups across the school.. We want to provide extra support to maintain high attainment. Small group interventions with highly qualified staff have been shown to be effective, as discussed in reliable evidence sources such as Visible Learning by John Hattie and the EEF Toolkit.Careful analysis took place in the summer which will allow interventions to centre on which target steps to close gaps on over the course of the year.Additional emphasis on holding and building sentences orally prior to writing will enable editing of ideas to be taking place as a pre-thought rather than just an after-thought edit. Extra teaching time and preparation time paid for out of PP budget, not sought on a voluntary basis.Impact overseen by literacy co-ordinator/ SEN and Assessment LeaderTeaching assistant (TA) impact assessed by phase leaders/SENCOEngagement with parents and pupils before intervention begins to address any concerns or questions about the additional sessions at parents evening.

 

English, SENCO and Assessment Leads to create and agree intervention plan foci Jan  2017Cost – 2 afternoons of qualified UPS teacher time (6500)4 afternoons of TA time

 

£5000

Total budgeted cost

£30150
  1.  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?
Reduction of the academic impact of extended (unauthorised) leave for families returning to overseas. Home learning contracts reinforced with all parents as part of the school approach to embedding key learning that is built upon.Where overseas holidays do go ahead, children and parents given advice on how to maintain and sustain English learning as part of the expectation of the school (linked to home learning policy) Ebbinghaus – memory and recall research showed that if core knowledge is revisited frequently then it will have a greater chance of embedding into long term retrievable memory. This has driven the emphasis on prove its (whereby children cyclically get asked to prove their earlier learning to ensure that it is frequently recalled into working memory).This research has now been extended to the homework policy and the production of core learning to maintain during the Summer Holidays for all pupils. This is of particular importance for children with extended leave. Home learning approach shared with all parents each year. Packs created to support core learning linked to target steps and sent home for the summer holiday.Teachers do a check in Autumn term of summer “Drip Drip learning” and share outcomes with parents at Autumn parent evening, alongside the new target step priorities. Time taken to discuss importance and how parents can support this as well as the school’s plans to additionally support this.All Phase leaders to ensure that teachers are familiar with the home learning message that should be consistently given to all parents. SLT July 2017

 

£500

 

 

  1. 6.   Review of expenditure
Previous Academic Year £40,000
  1.     i.   Quality of teaching and learning for all
Desired outcome Chosen action/approach Estimated impact: Did you meet the success criteria? Include impact on pupils not eligible for PP, if appropriate eg attainment data, progress data, and case studies Lessons learned re impact/implementation (and whether you will continue with this approach) Cost
Quality First teaching is of a high standard for current staff and staff new to the profession will pass their year. Staff supported via coaching investment and CPD during the year. NQT staff mentored by experienced practitioners. Teaching observed in looking at learning weeks of a high quality. Book Looks similarly show good progress over time for pupils. Both NQTs pass first year with a very high rating and Teach direct student receives the highest pass possible (distinction)Success Criteria: MEt Staff were positive about their induction training and believe it has enabled them to be reflective, good practitioners. Coaching for existing staff, whilst valuable, needed direction from the looking at learning foci in order to support the school development. It was not always possible to follow up staff coaching beyond the initial discussion due to staff difficulties.   We will repeat the NQT training, and continue implementing the coaching approach for quality first teaching linked to SEF priorities for core subjects over the next year. and monitoring pupil response.  £ 2 x coaching support for NQT £2800Release time for coaching staff – £2000
Year 3/4 mixed age classes to have sufficient TA support – 3 x TAs to be employed which means an additional member of staff recruited full time. This should provide better capacity for supporting vulnerable pupils. One additional member of staff recruited – (approved by finance governors) Additional staffing at lunchtimes to support happy lunchtimes so that the impact on afternoon learning for vulnerable pupils is minimised. Ta recruited and has worked well in the team. Good routines of feedback embedded over the year. Teacher feedback and deployment has been beneficial to follow up individual learners and provide opportunity to embed learning. TAs used to cover reading 1-1 as well as deployed to support closing the gap plans.Success Criteria – Met. Feedbacl from year ¾ team has been  positive in regard to their capacity to deploy staff for additional support needs. Closing the gap plans have been well planned and resoruced for TAs to administer. There has been a clear awareness of clsoign the gaps and subject knowledge to do this. Phase leader actively mentored new TA staff to ensure consitent routines. Governor approval sought to maintain the contracts for the following year as a result of improved resourcing for support this year. Additional TA costs for 2015/16£9000
Increase resourcing of IPADs in order to support bug club reading, research and engagement in learning for all pupils. 60 additional Ipads purchased (30 for KS1 and 30 for Lower KS2) This supplements the 30 already available for upper KS2) Ipads planned for and deployed effectively as  learning resource. Bug Club, Sum Dog, Explain Everything, Socrative and Thinking Blocks are just a few of the apps used this year that have been engaging and purposeful. Teacher and pupil feedback has been positive. Hardware in place now. Development over the next year will be to incrase the impact of Thinking Blocks as visual resourcee for amthemtatical thinking (see SEF plans) and to continue using the IPads to support learning creatively across the school. Ipad costs£25 K
Increase scope of ELSA support and new appointment of lead ELSA to support emotional literacy barriers to learning for PP pupils New training for ELSA and additional release to support this. Specific weekly ELSa programmes planned and delivered by qualified ataff to address needs of vulenaabel pupils named on PP. Training passed by new ELSA. Provision maintained in a  period of change. New timetabling now needs to increase to two afternnons a week for 2016/17 to meet needs of vulnerable pupils more fully across both sites. ELSA training costs £2000.One afternoon a week release – £1200
  1.    ii.   Targeted support
Desired outcome Chosen action/approach Estimated impact: Did you 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
Improved basic skills attainment for KS1 pupils Intervention sessions planned and delivered by trained TA in Infant department Medium: observed increased progress amongst participating children in terms of confidence and in school teacher assessment. However this did not translate to all KS1 tests with writing being  a pass rate of 25% (only 1 out of 4 PP pupils) compared to peersSuccess Criteria: Partly Met   This seemed to be most effective when the focus area was determined by the class teacher based on their observations of the pupil and in close reference to the closing the gap plans We will continue next year and the SENCo will be involved in monitoring the quality and impact of intervention sessions for individuals alongside the phase leader and assessment leader. An increased emphasis on talk for literacy and visual pictorial/concrete maths learning will support the SEF focus intended for next year.  3 afternoons a week of TA time£8000
Improved PP outcomes at the end of KS2. Intervention sessions planned and delivered by trained teacher, TA  and HLTA in Junior departmentAdditional one on one interventions for PP children Results (see above) show that we are just ahead of PP national results for KS2 and the GPS results are very good. Combined results are the closest to national Overall:Met Interventions need to be planned across whole KS2 to ensure best deployment of resources. Clashes of timetables caused some lag for pupil impact.Approach to continue via effective closing the gap plans but improved by a more cohesive whole department approach that includes three additional teachers that have a clear remit and responsibility for their impact. 2 x afternoons a week of qualified teacher time3 afternoons of TA additional time – £8000
  £34000 (+ proportion of £25000 IPAD costs)

 

 

  1.  iii.   Other approaches
Desired outcome Chosen action/approach Estimated impact: Did you 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
Additional maths intervention on a 1-1 basis for Year 6 pupils that are particularly weak in mathematics Third Space Learning Booster programme January to May 2016 50% of the 4 children identified met national standard for maths in test. Pupils anecdotally said that they found it useful.Success: partly met Higher success rate would have been desirable. Teachers lacked some ownership on choosing the most suitable Third Space sessions and so this intervention will be reviewed again in January 2017 with a view to  increased teacher ownership on choosing packages to suit individual needs should it go ahead. . Third space learning cost £`1000

 

  1. 7.    Additional detail
Whole school development focused on assessment and especially the development of peer on peer feedback. This has helped to raise the culture of ethic of everyone with peers being used as coaches when they have mastered their own content. This will continue to be an emerging developmental culture across the school.In KS2, the challenge of tests and writing checklists were approached in a  child centred way with children being encouraged to bank their writing and being coached and conferenced by capable peers and adults in regard to national expectation criteria. This needs to continue to be our approach to building BLP learners – self regulated, motivated and aspiring to do their best. This will be reflected in the new vision being created in Year 5/6 especially as well as the SDP priorities for 2016/17. We also used pupil premium funding to support residential and school trips during the year and would continue to do this to increase enjoyment and participation.