Pupil premium strategy statement (Crook Primary School 2017-18)
1. Summary information |
|||||
School |
Crook Primary |
||||
Academic Year |
2017-18 |
Total PP budget |
£207700 |
Date of most recent PP Review |
06.09.17 |
Total number of pupils |
386(Jan census) Sept 2017 - 363 |
Number of pupils eligible for PP |
162(42%)
Sept 2017 138 (38%) |
Date for next internal review of this strategy |
July 2018 |
2. Current attainment |
||
|
Pupils eligible for PP (your school) |
Pupils not eligible for PP (national average) |
% achieving in reading, writing and maths |
38% |
61% |
% making progress in reading |
73% |
71% |
% making progress in writing |
42% |
76% |
% making progress in maths |
50% |
75% |
3. Barriers to future attainment (for pupils eligible for PP, including high ability) |
||||
In-school barriers (issues to be addressed in school, such as poor oral language skills) |
||||
A. |
Historical low on entry abilities particularly around speech and language and social skills. |
|||
B. |
Increasing % of SEN pupils and pupils with social, emotional and mental health issues |
|||
C. |
High % of FSM pupils in certain cohorts eg y2 – 52% and higher than national proportion of boys in the school. |
|||
External barriers (issues which also require action outside school, such as low attendance rates) |
||||
D. |
High social deprivation – majority of pupils live in the bottom 30% of the most deprived areas in the country. This results in low aspirations and a negative attitude towards education by some parents and pupils. Low adult literacy means many pupils receive little support from home. |
|||
E. |
Few opportunities for cultural and life experiences to develop and stimulate a love of learning. |
|||
F. |
Low attendance rates especially persistent absences among vulnerable pupils impact on learning. |
|||
4. Desired outcomes |
|
|||
|
Desired outcomes and how they will be measured |
Success criteria |
|
|
A. |
Improve outcomes for PP children in both attainment and progress and narrow gaps in reading and maths. Improve feedback to impact on outcomes
|
The % of pupils working at ARE and exceeding increases in all cohorts. The % of PP children working at greater depth in maths is in line with NA(20%) at KS1.
The % of PP children working at greater depth will increase in all areas compared to 2017 data in KS2.
Books support the positive impact of feedback on the quality of the work. |
|
|
B. |
Improve outcomes particularly in writing across the school for PP pupils. Use outdoor activities to enrich the curriculum and stimulate and interest pupils.
|
Increase attainment at end of KS2 . ARE in writing increases by 20% to 65% The % of PP pupils working at greater depth also increases.
Increase attainment at ARE the end of KS1 to 65% in writing.
Increase the % of pupils working at ARE in all year groups compared to 2017 data. |
|
|
C. |
Provide counselling for specific vulnerable children to improve confidence, resilience and self regulation.
|
Identified pupils improve their resilience, are more prepared to tackle problems independently and work with confidence. This is reflected in increased progress shown in books and tracking. |
|
|
D. |
PSA to work with vulnerable families to reduce external barriers, improve attendance, reduce persistent absences and increase parental involvement. |
PA data shows an improving picture for PP pupils. Parents attend planned sessions, both whole school events and individual meetings and become more active in supporting their children. PP SEN children make improved progress. |
|
|
5. Planned expenditure |
|||||
Academic year |
2017 -18 |
||||
The three headings below enable schools to demonstrate how they are using the pupil premium to improve classroom pedagogy, provide targeted support and support whole school strategies. |
|||||
i. Quality of teaching for all |
|||||
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? |
Improve outcomes for PP children in both attainment and progress and narrow gaps.
The % of PP children working at greater depth in maths is in line with NA(20%) and in writing it will increase at KS1.
The % of PP children working at greater depth will increase in all areas compared to 2017 data.
|
Peer tutoring Targeted intervention by teachers in identified year groups including for more able PP children. Maintain small groups in EYFS, Y1 and Y6 and target MA PP pupils.
|
Analysis of data is showing improved progress across the school of PP children but attainment varies compared to NA. Although attainment has improved, gaps between PP and non PP remain due to the fact that attainment of non PP children has continued to improve. |
Monitoring every half term of interventions. Review of data at PP meetings. Monitoring of interventions through learning walks and intervention trackers.
|
AHT |
Every half term Gov body meeting Pupil progress meetings. Phase leader discussions half termly. |
Improve feedback to impact on outcomes |
Introduce time for pupil/ teacher conferencing. Ownership of targets by children. Specific attainment based targets used to close gaps in learning. |
Monitoring of books has revealed that limited opportunities are provided for pupils to review and self improve their work in some classes.
Pupils lack confidence in talking about their learning. |
Work scrutiny, moderation sessions, CPD |
SLT and literacy lead |
Termly PP meetings and half termly monitoring activities. |
Total budgeted cost |
£22,974.80 |
||||
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? |
Improve outcomes in writing across the school for PP pupils.
Increase attainment of End of Y6 pupils at ARE in writing by 20% to 65%
Increase attainment at ARE the end of KS1 to 65% in writing. |
4 Additional teachers working with identified pupils in Y2,3,4,5,6
Develop outdoor learning adventures linked to improving literacy.( 3 day training course)
LA support for EEF writing project.
Provide more bespoke curriculum for SEN PP children to allow progress to be tracked more effectively and narrow gaps. |
Analysis of data shows that attainment and progress in writing across the school is lower than in reading and maths.
Analysis of data shows attainment and progress for SEN PP pupils is low.
Small steps not currently being tracked.
Pupils’ feedback from questionnaires indicated that writing was their least favourite subject. |
Rigorous monitoring. Annual monitoring programme involving leaders at all levels. Learning walks, work scrutiny, data analysis and lesson observations. Termly focused Pupil Progress meetings.
SEN support plan reviews and meetings.
|
SLT and literacy lead
AHT |
Half termly Monitoring programme SEN meetings and reviews. |
Total budgeted cost |
£129,862.5 |
||||
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? |
Provide counselling for specific vulnerable children to improve confidence, resilience and self regulation. |
Counselling service and Time to Talk interventions Nurture group programme carried out 3 days a week with identified children. |
External barriers impact on social and emotional readiness for learning. The number of pupils with social and emotional needs in increasing year on year. |
AHT to monitor and review every half term with TA working on Time to Talk. HT to monitor work of counsellor and ensure correct children receives the help required. |
AHT |
Every half term. Report to gov body termly. |
PSA to work with vulnerable families to reduce external barriers, improve attendance, reduce persistent absences and increase parental involvement.
|
PSA working in school 0.6 Attendance officer to target PP low attendance and PA.
Employment of attendance officer |
Analysis of attendance data and needs of vulnerable families shows need for PSA and Attendance officer. PA is higher than NA for PP pupils. |
HT to monitor – ongoing PSA and attendance officer report to HT on a regular basis. Govs monitor attendance data every term. |
HT and PSA |
Every half term Weekly – attendance discussions. Gov body meetings. |
Total budgeted cost |
£ 54,862.70 |
||||
Total budget cost for Pupil premium strategy |
£207,700 |
6. Review of expenditure |
||||
Previous Academic Year 2016-17 |
|
|||
i. Quality of teaching 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. |
Lessons learned (and whether you will continue with this approach) |
Cost |
Improve outcomes in reading
|
Provide regular reading groups from Y1 to Y6 to improve comprehension skills. Daily reading KS1
3X weekly KS2
|
Outcomes for reading improved at the end KS2 for all pupils and improved by 35% for PP pupils in Y6 and 19% improvement in Y1.
|
Continue with small groups in Y6 and phonics teaching in Y1 as these strategies worked well
It is more effective to use a teacher for reading rather than targeted TA support. |
£48781
|
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 |
More PP pupils to reach combined greater depth high outcomes
|
Additional support for PP more able pupils to increase confidence and work on mastery of subjects. |
Increased % of children exceeding age related expectations at KS2. |
This approach enhanced their learning and developed mastery of the curriculum however this year we have other priorities such as writing across the school.
|
£114781 |
Improve outcomes for PP pupils |
Extra teachers and staff for Interventions, booster, individual targeted support through TA and teachers. |
In some year groups attainment of PP children has improved and across the school progress has increased. |
We have refined interventions for 2017 – 18 because not all were effective. This year some interventions will be led by teaching staff and HLTAs. |
|
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 |
Children and families gain emotional stability and resilience to enable children to learn. Families are well support. |
Provide counselling and nurture provision. PSA support and new therapeutic interventions to be used on identified pupils. Further monitor attendance and respond to findings. |
Increased number of pupils arriving at school on time. Children more able to self regulate emotions in order to access learning. More families referred to attendance improvement team. Increased involvement for targeted families.
|
This approach will be continued through our new nurture provision in order to embed the whole approach for greater impact on attendance and improved mental health. |
£197918 |
Pupil Premium 2016-17
1. Summary information |
|||||
School |
Crook Primary School |
||||
Academic Year |
2016-17 |
Total PP budget |
£ 197,360 |
Date of most recent PP Review |
20/1/2017 |
Total number of pupils |
383 plus 58 nurser nnursery |
Number of pupils eligible for PP |
39%
|
Date for next internal review of this strategy |
09/17 |
2. Current attainment |
|||||
Y6 2015/2016 |
Pupils eligible for PP (your school) |
Pupils not eligible for PP (national average) |
|||
% reaching age related expectations in Reading, Writing and Maths |
48% |
60% |
|||
% meeting standard or above in reading |
65% |
71% |
|||
% meeting standard or above in writing |
65% |
79% |
|||
% meeting standard or above in maths |
65% |
75% |
|||
Y2 2015/2016 |
|||||
% meeting standard or above in reading |
63% |
78% |
|||
% meeting standard or above in writing |
63% |
70% |
|||
% meeting standard or above in maths |
63% |
77% |
|||
3. Barriers to future attainment (for pupils eligible for PP) |
|||||
In-school barriers |
|||||
|
PP pupils generally have few independent learning strategies so require highly structured and scaffolded lessons. Too few PP pupils reach combined outcomes for: English reading, writing and mathematics. |
||||
|
Separate nursery provision led to historically weak starting points entering into reception. Too few MAP PP exceed GLD Transition from EYFS development groups expected and exceeding to KS1 for PP pupils is lower in the following areas: reading –exceeding GLD to greater depth respectively writing – expected and exceeding GLD to greater depth mathematics – expected and exceeding GLD to greater depth Transition from KS1 to KS2 to high standard
|
||||
|
Emotional readiness for learning – lacking confidence and resilience. Mental wellbeing |
||||
External barriers |
|||||
|
Limited access to wider enrichment / language activities. |
||||
|
Persistent absenteeism for PP pupils |
||||
|
Mobility – inward and outward
|
||||
|
Varied nursery provision resulting in low on entry data. |
||||
4. Desired outcomes (Desired outcomes and how they will be measured) |
Success criteria |
||||
|
To secure quality first teaching for disadvantaged pupils and raise standards PP pupils are identified in each year group within class profiles and cross reference with SEN Those PP pupils whose prior attainment would indicate they should reach expected standard in all subjects, will receive targeted intervention to ensure they reach combined outcomes. Pupil progress meetings analyse assessment outcomes of key groups – referring back to starting points to analyse historical gaps and how well they are reducing..
|
Attainment improves and gaps narrow when compared to 2016 |
|||
|
Transition from KS1 to KS2 demonstrates that more disadvantaged pupils reach the high standard than 2016. |
Greater proportion of PP EYFS group reach greater depth at end of KS1
|
|||
|
Provide therapeutic services and nurture provision for vulnerable PP pupils. |
Targeted pupils show more resilience in lessons and are more able to access learning in the classroom environment. |
|||
|
Attendance – reducing the proportion of disadvantaged persistent absenteeism across the school. Of the pupils with attendance below 90%, 75% are identified PPG pupils |
Reduce PA on disadvantaged pupils |
|||
5. Planned expenditure |
||||||
· Academic year |
2016 -2017 |
|||||
The three headings below enable schools to demonstrate how they are using the Pupil Premium to improve classroom pedagogy, provide targeted support and support whole school strategies |
||||||
1. Quality of teaching for all |
||||||
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? |
|
|
Detailed cohort files identify PP pupils, including more able. Targets are set at the beginning of the academic year for end of year outcomes that show accelerated progress to enable more pupils to reach combined attainment outcomes and higher standard |
Research from The Sutton Trust has shown that good teachers have the most direct impact on student outcomes.
Teachers were not fully aware of the impact of mobility upon the size and dynamic of pupils groups.
|
Termly pupil progress meetings Inclusion manager ensures all mobility is tracked and recorded within cohort files and staffs are informed of pupil movement. |
HT DHT AHT |
termly |
|
|
Speech and oral language interventions including resources to help self regulation and independence. |
Lesson observation of PP pupils identified that classrooms were not supporting pupils’ independently learning effectively. Learning walls were not accessible for PP pupils and therefore to supporting. Resources were not easily accessible for pupils |
Monitoring Staff training |
SLT |
Spring Term |
|
|
Remove RWI. Adjust the teaching sequence of phonemes so that PP pupil have access to all sounds before screening |
Limited access to quality talk within the home resulted in PP pupils lower phonics screening outcomes Highly structured RWI approach to writing limited PPG exposure to quality text and writing styles. |
Monitoring Staff training |
SLT |
Spring term and summer term review of results |
|
|
3X Y6 classes Reduce class size |
Reduce class size to address high proportion of PP within the cohort (46%) Outcomes low and gap wide for PP and other pupils |
Monitoring |
SLT |
Spring term and summer term review of results |
|
Resource management and monitoring costs Additional teacher Y6 Additional support Year 1 phonics intervention PPG
|
|
|||||
Total budgeted cost |
£ 48781 |
|||||
i. 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? |
|
Reading individual targeted support for PP pupils in all year groups from Y1 to Y6 Daily reading KS1 3X weekly KS2
|
Secure expected standards for those PP pupils who were below at EYFS and KS1. Reading records indicate that PP pupils are not heard to read daily at home |
Monitoring on a termly basis through assessment review and data collection |
SLT |
April ‘17 July’17 |
|
Additional support for PP more able pupils to ensure they receive enrichment activities to develop verbal reasoning skills – link with Durham university |
More PP pupils to reach combined greater depth / high outcomes |
Monitoring on a termly basis through data collection |
SLT |
April ‘17 July’17 |
|
Booster Class Y6 Afternoon additional basic skills 1X week
Maths class Y2 & Y6 - 2 X hour per week |
Bespoke support dedicated to the needs of individual pupils addresses misconceptions quickly and counters underachievement. |
Analysis of data collection |
DHT + Y6 |
July ‘17 |
|
Dedicated TA support delivering interventions |
Support for: Lexia Reading intervention – word wasp and hornet Lego therapy – 4X 30 min weekly sessions Memory therapy – 4X30min weekly Relaxation S&L therapy – bespoke for individuals PP
|
Analysis of data collection |
AHT Inclusion |
April 17 |
|
Additional 2X TA in YR to reduce key worker groups |
Weaker historical AOE data Introduction of key worker system high proportion of PP with limited language |
Assessment observation |
DHT |
April 17 GLD |
TA employed full time to hear readers Targeted member of staff for enrichment (half costs) Targeted member of staff for language development / intervention Additional HTLA in Y2 to take focus group of PPG pupil to narrow all subjects 0.5 2X TA to reduce key worker group for PPG pupils
|
|
||||
Total budgeted cost |
114781 |
ii. 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? |
|||||
|
Appointed designated member of SLT for review of PP pupils |
Increasing PP pupils, increasing number of PP ever6 Variable gaps within assessment across the school |
Outcomes academic BOXALL assessment entry exit |
AHT |
Performance management review and final assessment |
|||||
|
Develop nurture facility on site - |
Access to outdoor learning provision Targeted PPG emotional readiness for learning barrier to learning Improving attention |
Improved mental health |
AHT |
Awaiting LA build Plans approved |
|||||
|
PSA - targeted to PP families to improve attendance and punctuality ad raise the importance of 3X days weekly |
Many of our disadvantaged pupils have high PA than other pupils targeted to improve levels of attendance to impact upon their academic achievement. |
This will be monitored termly through attendance and punctuality reviews |
PSA & HT |
April ‘17 July’17 |
|||||
|
Induction programme in place for mobility |
66% of all school mobility is associated with PP pupils Need for accurate on entry assessment information and establishment of school expectations |
Attendance and punctuality monitored Emotional BOXALL assessment to ensure transition procedures are smooth |
AHT |
ongoing |
|||||
|
Pupils have access to therapeutic services including counselling |
This provides support for social and emotional needs. |
Targeted pupils will be tracked through data collection cycles Reduced number of behavioural incidents recorded |
AHT -inclusion |
April ‘17 July’17 |
|||||
Total budgeted cost |
34,356 |
|||||||||
Overall Spend |
197,918 |
Pupil Premium 2015-16
Crook Primary was given £194,940 for the academic year 2015-16 for pupil premium. This money was used to fund support for vulnerable children in the following ways:
To provide PSA support two and a half days per week |
£13,329.50 |
Additional teacher in year 6 to narrow the gap by reducing class sizes. |
£46,560 |
Additional part time teacher for intervention KS1 |
£28,657 |
Additional EYFS support to reduce size of key worker groups for pupil premium children |
£40,308 |
Additional part time teacher for intervention KS 2 |
£27,567 |
To employ an HLTA pupil premium children to develop resilience and emotional well being |
£24,982 |
Additional support in Year 1 to close the gap for pupil premium children with phonics |
£20, 151 |
Impact of Pupil Premium
The Parent Support Advisor has worked closely to support vulnerable families and as a school we have developed resilience and well- being to support vulnerable children. The “Relax Kids” approach has been introduced by the HLTA and we have a weekly resilience award.
Extra support in EYFS ensured that the “Good Level of Development” increased from 49% to 64%. Investment in read, Write, Inc as well as intervention groups and Read, Write Inc Lead Teacher ensured that in Year 1 phonics increased to 80% from 60%. 77% of pupil premium children passed the test compared to 82% of non -pupil premium children.
These intervention strategies also impacted on results in Year 2. Of the Pupil Premium children who were present in EYFS, 100% made expected progress in Reading with 61% making more than expected. 50% achieved a 2A+.
In writing. 100% made expected progress with 61% making more than expected. 33% achieved a 2A+.
In Maths based on Number results in EYFS, 100% made expected with 89% making more than expected.62% achieved a 2A+.
Year 6 results showed a similar picture of good progress for pupil premium children due to a high level of intervention. Gaps were minimal between FSM and Non FSM children at level 4 and progress in line with national expectations at level 5 from 2014 data. There is a gap in attainment between FSM and non FSM at level 5. However, 25% of FSM children are SEN compared to 9% of non FSM.
In reading 94% of FSM children achieved a level 4 compared to 91% of non FSM. 25% of FSM children achieved a level 5 compared to 35% of non FSM. 100% of FSM children made expected progress with 38% making more than expected. 97% of non FSM children made expected progress with 41% making more than expected.
In writing 88 % of FSM children achieved a level 4 compared to 97% of non FSM. 25% of FSM children achieved a level 5 compared to 53% of non FSM. 100% of FSM children made expected progress with 31% making more than expected. 100% of non FSM children made expected progress with 62% making more than expected.
In maths 94 % of FSM children achieved a level 4 compared to 94% of non FSM. 13% of FSM children achieved a level 5 compared to 47% of non FSM. 94% of FSM children made expected progress with 31% making more than expected. 94% of non FSM children made expected progress with 53% making more than expected.