Pupil Premium Strategy Statement

1.Summary information
St Christopher’s CE High School
Academic Year / 2016/17 / Total PP budget / £100,460 / Date of most recent PP Review / April 2013
Total number of pupils / 1020 / Number of pupils eligible for PP / 110 / Date for next internal review of this strategy / September 2017
2.Current attainment
Figures for the year 2015/16 only / Number of pupils eligible for PP / Pupils not eligible for PP (national average)
% achieving 5A* - C incl. EM / 53.33% / 64.7%
% achieving expected progress in English / Maths / 80.0% / 53.33% / 75.8% / 73.4%
Progress 8 score average / -0.32 / 0.12
Attainment 8 score average / 48.27 / 52
3.Barriers to future attainment (for pupils eligible for PP including high ability)
In-school barriers
A / Higher ability pupils who are eligible for PP making less progress than school averages across KS3. This prevents sustained high achievement through KS4.
B / Behaviour issues for a small group of disadvantaged pupils prevents sustained achievement through both Key Stages
C
External barriers
D / Attendance rates for pupils eligible for PP are 95.3% (below the target for all children of 97.8%). This reduces their school hours and causes them to fall further behind their peers.
4.Outcomes
Desired outcomes and how they will be measured / Success criteria
A / High levels of accelerated progress for KS3 disadvantaged pupils across the curriculum, but specifically in maths. / Pupils eligible for PP in KS3 make more progress by the end of the year than ‘other’ pupils. The main focus is first wave teaching with high aspirations and expectations for our pupils. Where progress is not evidenced, Heads of Departments will manage personalised intervention. This will be evidenced using SIMS analysis and the specific intervention (e.g. Maths Activity Lunchtime groups) as a record of progress. Progress will be assessed after each “data drop” and Heads of Departments will report findings to Line Manager.
B / Pupils eligible for the PP grant will represent less than their statistical relevance in the school in terms of exclusions. This will signify a drop to 10% of exclusions. The current rate is 17%. / Exclusions amongst the group will only be agreed by Senior Teacher with responsibility for PP grant. Alternative, effective ways of dealing with certain situations need to be found without undermining the current behaviour policy of the school.
C
D / Increased attendance rates for pupils eligible for PP grant. / Reduce the number of persistent absentees (PA) among pupils eligible for PP. The numbers look good compared to national averages but there are individuals with very poor attendance. The overall attendance should move from 95.8 to 97.5 to be in line with ‘other’ pupils in school.
5.Planned expenditure
Academic Year / 2016-17
Quality of teaching for all
Desired Outcome / Chosen action/approach / What is the evidence/rationale for this choice? / How will you ensure it is implemented well? / Staff Lead / When will implementation be reviewed?
A. Improved progress across KS3 and KS4 for disadvantaged pupils. / CPD for relevant staff on raising aspirations at KS3 and KS4. / We want to offer high quality teaching to all these pupils to drive up results. CPD can combine pedagogy with peer support. These things are recommended in the Teacher Development Trust research review on professional development. / Use of “Bluesky” to monitor training. Observation of lessons with specific focus on targeting HAPs. / Department Line Managers and HoD. / Various times - After each department review.
A. Improved progress across KS3 and KS4 for disadvantaged pupils. / Department-specific intervention at KS3 and KS4. / For those pupils who do not engage or do not make the required progress, specific intervention may be offered. Our own impact analysis shows that certain individuals need different approaches. / Any pupil falling behind in terms of progress will be highlighted at each data collect and HoD will be asked to implement appropriate strategy.
The long term view is that HoD will do this for themselves, and, of course, many currently do. / EG, RO / Within 6 weeks of each data collect for the year group.
B. Reduce the number of exclusions of pupils eligible for PP grant / Exclusions amongst the group will only be agreed by Senior Teacher with responsibility for PP grant. / 6 of the 10 exclusions last year were from 2 pupils. This suggests a repeat of poor behaviour without resolution to the cause of the behaviour. Alternative, effective ways of dealing with certain situations need to be found without undermining the current behaviour policy of the school. / All exclusions concerning pupils eligible for PP grant must be signed off by RO before going to RJ. / RO, HoY, SMT / Termly
Total budgeted cost / £15,000
Targeted support
Desired Outcome / Chosen action/approach / What is the evidence/rationale for this choice? / How will you ensure it is implemented well? / Staff Lead / When will implementation be reviewed?
A. Improved progress across KS3 and KS4 for disadvantaged pupils. / Positively Mad sessions / These have proved to be hugely beneficial for parents and pupils alike. They are useful when trying to raise aspiration and help with organisation and revision techniques. / Organise timetable of courses for 2016-17. / RO / July 2017
A. Improved progress across KS3 and KS4 for disadvantaged pupils. / Accelerated Reader for KS3 / The evidence from other schools is that this makes a real difference to progress in terms of reading age and, consequently, ability to access questions and build resilience. / Licence for all od year 7 in the first instance and then rolled out to other year groups by 2017-18. / DU, WY, NM, RO / January 2017
Total budgeted cost / £10,000
Other approaches
Desired Outcome / Chosen action/approach / What is the evidence/rationale for this choice? / How will you ensure it is implemented well? / Staff Lead / When will implementation be reviewed?
A. Improved progress across KS3 and KS4 for disadvantaged pupils. / 121 in Maths and English; maths activity pack; maths booster classes; English Revision weekend; resources – text books, etc. / These all demonstrate key interventions with various groups of pupils, including disadvantaged. The idea is to support departments through this transition of KS3 and KS4 curriculum change. / Funding must be applied for in the new “bid” system with teachers being held to account for impact. / RO / Termly
Total budgeted cost / £20,000
B. Reduce the number of exclusions of pupils eligible for PP grant / “Dads and Lads”; enrichment activities; treats as rewards; free breakfasts. / Incentivising engagement with school is an appropriate way to improve attendance and commitment to success in the school years. This “buying into” school and its principles has proved to be an important factor in progress from our own internal analysis of previous patterns of behaviour – especially from boys. / Funding is secured each year via the bid process and attendance is monitored. / RO / July 2017
Total budgeted cost / £5,000
6.Review of expenditure
Previous Academic Year
Desired Outcome / Chosen action/approach / Estimated impact / Lessons learned / Cost
Improve attainment across KS4 / 121 English; 121 Maths; English revision weekend; Positively Mad intervention. / Mixed: the majority of pupils (4 from 7 – see 4 Matrix) improved by a whole grade. In maths 3 out of 8 did so (see 4 Matrix). Likewise, the English revision weekend yielded a move from -0.44 P8 to +0.01 P8 and Positively Mad from -0.2 to +0.3.
Information on 4 Matrix for all of these impact statements. / For some pupils, these strategies just didn’t work. Top end boys didn’t engage with the process and this has forced us to think carefully about utilising a bespoke mentor system next year. / £20,000
Improve progress across KS3 / Accelerated Reader; Maths activity club; form inspections; Positively Mad sessions; Literacy coordination; Sixth Form mentor group. / Good: overall, the groups improved, particularly in year 8, where most of the literacy and mentor work was done. However, year 7 and year 9 still had issues around progress. Individuals struggles to engage with the “light touch” of group sessions and invites to revision classes.
Impact is also an issue with regard to monitoring and responsibility. / Accelerated Reader needs to be rolled out to all KS3 in order to gain the momentum needed; with it just being two classes, the pupils feel singles out and have not bought into the system.
Maths activity club needs to be directed on the back of poor progress and impact reports need to be produced on a half-termly basis.
Accountability of key staff is crucial – Literacy coordinator, lead in maths, etc. / £8,800
Improve inclusion and a sense of wellbeing and parental involvement. / Resources (books, equipment, revision guides, uniform).
Welfare and counselling to improve wellbeing. Enrichment, including trips. / £21,262
Staffing costs / £52,180
Total spend / £102,190

Pupil Premium %Other Pupils %Gap

GCSE More than 5, incl. En + Ma:

Compared to school- 0.32- 0.08- 0.14

Compared to national- 0.320.12- 0.44

Attendance 2015-16

Pupil Premium %Other Pupils %Gap

Year 1195.897.51.8

Year 1095.597.92.4

Year 995.196.81.7

Year 895.797.72.0

Year 797.198.21.1

TOTAL95.897.51.7

Behaviour 2015-16

Pupil Premium Other Pupils

ExclusionsIsolation

10214387

Findings

The attendance has improved with the in school gap coming down to just 1.7%. There is a new measure this year with the focus entirely on progress compared to non-disadvantaged pupils nationally.

Heads of Year, in conjunction with assistant heads of year and form teachers, monitored the emotional and social well-being of PP pupils and had oversight of the academic progress of these students.

All staff provided with details of PP pupils and provided with introductory training at staff meetings. Photographs of these pupils were displayed in main staffroom and circulated to staff via confidential email.

Governors’ involvement in the nature and quality of the school’s provision for PP remains a high profile item on the full governors’ agenda. Three presentations were given last year with three more planned for this year, one at each full governing body.

Attendance and Behaviour

  • PP pupils with poor attendance were targeted with the specific aim of improving attendance. The strategies ranged from pupil to pupil. The overall effect was an improved attendance for the disadvantaged cohort, narrowing the gap in school to just 1.7%. However, pupils responded well to HoY and form teacher encouragement. Specifically, the reward of treats and payment for trips improved 3 pupils from 86.5%, 89.5% and 88.2% to 94.2%, 94.2% and 94.5% respectively. Unfortunately, some pupils did not respond how we would like, one such going from 95.8% to 92.9%. Perhaps a consistent approach from HoY will help with this in 2016-17. Despite overall attendance being good, there are still a number of P.A. in vulnerable groups. This must remain a focus for 2016-17.
  • Exclusions seemed high for disadvantaged pupils in 2015-16 but 6 of the 10 were from just 2 pupils. There needs to be a clear focus in 2016-17 to find alternatives to exclusion and deal with any underlying issues.

Academic Performance

  • PP pupils from Year 11 were tutored one-to-one in English and Maths. We know that the impact on these pupils was significant. In total, 7 pupils took part in the English sessions, spanning 6 weeks. Of these, 4 achieved a whole grade above their expected grade at the onset of the intervention. The Maths intervention had similar success with 3 out of 8 gaining a higher grade than before the intervention. This is certainly something to be repeated in 2016-17 as we get the results from the PPEs.
  • KS3 and KS4 disadvantaged pupils also on literacy programme run by sixth form students for those underachieving in English. DU (Literacy Coordinator) to provide separate report judging impact for SMT and governors.
  • Maths Challenge lunch groups proved successful with 111 combined levels of progress made. Maths are keen to state that this works and are happy to continue it from September this year.
  • Accelerated reader is making a steady start and should yield progress reports from the end of Term 1 2016-17. Other schools have recommended this and we are keen to see the benefits of encouraging reading across KS3, in particular.
  • Positively Mad has proved useful across all year groups. The impact can be seen from the pupils attending extra sessions with Shenaz whereby several made progress. This is hard to attribute to this specific intervention, but they clearly benefitted from a small group environment with a focus on organisation and revision techniques. I expect to use this again in future. (See 4 Matrix analysis.)
  • The English Whitehough Revision weekend proved successful once again and was funded by PP. The key is that this group have historically performed about one whole grade higher than non-attenders with similar start points. This year, the evidence supported that once again. I think we should support this again for 2016-17. (See 4 Matrix)
  • The Year 11 mentoring programme has been hit and miss throughout the last few years. We didn’t really engage in it last year following the unsuccessful “motivation programme” in 2014-15. However, HoY is keen to try with smaller groups. Happy to support for 2016-17.
  • Speech and Language withdrawal remains a key element of catch-up/SEND and PP is happy to continue supporting this in 2016-17.
  • Maths conduct their own intervention strategies and ask for funding to suit. Happy to continue with this arrangement but need to be more involved with feedback/impact in 2016-17.
  • The parental involvement with things like “Dads and Lads” and Positively Mad parent sessions are, anecdotally, very good for the pupils. We see an improvement in attitude and forge closer links with home.
  • Resources are an obvious route to provide essential material to first-wave teaching as well as text books, revision guides, CDs, etc. All of these have been supported in the past and will be again in 2016-17. However, there will be a new bid-fund system whereby the teachers/departments are held to account on need and impact with follow-up dates. I believe that this is a huge improvement on last year’s system. The main focus is to HoD and teachers accountability for disadvantaged pupils’ progress.
  • The use of a control group will ensure that progress of pupils with similar starting points is tracked in relation to disadvantaged pupils to gauge individual progress with similar peers.