South West and Mid Wales Consortium

Consortiwm De Orllewin a Chanolbarth Cymru

Addressing DeprivationMynd i'r afael ag Amddifadedd

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 PictureKS4 L2 Inclusive

KS4 L2 Inclusive Attainment Gap

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Carmarthenshire 30.6 33.7 27

Ceredigion 28.9 31.1 34

Neath PT 36.9 28.3 32

Pembrokeshire 32.2 35.9 33

Powys 28.1 28.5 36

Swansea 36.5 37.2 32

ERW 33.8 33.6 31.7

Wales 33.9 33.7 33.2

ERW 2012Summary 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 SchoolsThe 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;

– A repository of the latest research and literature in the field of tackling deprivation.

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?

•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?

1.HOW 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?

•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?