Using the Pupil Premium to close the gap: policy and practice

  • View
    43

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Using the Pupil Premium to close the gap: policy and practice. Schools North East 11 October 2013 John Dunford National Pupil Premium Champion. The priorities . Raising achievement and closing the gap. The ambition . - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Text of Using the Pupil Premium to close the gap: policy and practice

ASCL NI Conf

Using the Pupil Premium to close the gap: policy and practiceSchools North East 11 October 2013

John DunfordNational Pupil Premium Champion

1The priorities Raising achievement and closing the gap2The ambition "Our data shows it doesn't matter if you go to a school in Britain, Finland or Japan, students from a privileged background tend to do well everywhere. What really distinguishes education systems is their capacity to deploy resources where they can make the most difference. Your effect as a teacher is a lot bigger for a student who doesn't have a privileged background than for a student who has lots of educational resources.Andreas Schleicher OECD

3Autonomy Autonomy isnt just for academies Freedom to not just freedom from Using your autonomy to prioritiseWhich gaps? Deprivation gender ethnic group class looked-after childrenWhat curriculum? PP is for disadvantaged pupilsFocus relentlessly on the quality of teaching and learningWhen girls were behind boys Using evidence

4Professional networks Seeking out excellent practice in closing the gapLooking out, not looking upEncouraging staff to build professional networksThe government isnt telling schools how to close the gapIts for schools to decide how to use PPLocal, regional, national, international evidence5Pupil premium: the gapThe gap gets wider as pupils get older: 16% gap (68%: 84%) in level 4 at 11 26% gap (39%: 66%) in 5A-Cs at 16 Big variations between schools and between LAsLevel 4 gap: Tower Hamlets 6%; Northumberland 20%; Durham 18%GCSE gap: London under 20%; Northumberland 34%; Hartlepool 36% Smallest gaps in schools with high or low FSM2008-12: Gap narrows. Primary 5.5%; Secondary 1.6%Outstanding teachers dont necessarily narrow the gap6Percentage of pupils at the end of Key Stage 4 attaining five GCSEs at grades A*to C including English and mathematics by free school meals eligibility 200512Figures for 2007 to 2011 are based on final data. 2012 figures are based on revised data. Based on students in state-funded schools (including academies and city technology colleges) at the end of Key Stage 4 in each academic year.Source: Department for Education

Percentage of Key Stage 4 pupils eligible for free school meals attaining the GCSE benchmarkby secondary schools, in deciles from low to high proportions of pupils eligible for free school mealsData based on 2012 Key Stage 4 validated data. Figures represent all open secondary schools that have had a published section 5 inspection as at 31 December 2012. Schools with percentage figures exactly on the decile boundary have been included in the lower decile.Pupil premium: the fundingAdditional per pupil funding for PP2011-12488 per pupil2012-13623 per pupil2013-14900 per pupil2014-15935 (secondary) 1300 (primary) Total PP funding2011-12625 million2012-131.25 billion2013-141.875 billion2014-152.5 billion 9Wider fundingPlus 50 million to secondary schools for summer schools for year 7 incomers that need extra supportPlus 500 per year 7 pupil who is below level 4 in reading and/or maths for literacy and numeracy catch-upPP funding not for existing provisionIn total this represents a big commitment by the government. Now schools have to deliver.10Using evidence of what workshttp://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/toolkit/http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupil-premiumhttp://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupil-premium-how-schools-are-spending-funding-successfully-maximise-achievement http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/unseen-children-access-and-achievement-20-years 11EEF Toolkit12

FeedbackApproachAverage impactCostEvidence estimateSummaryFeedback8 monthsVery high impact for low cost

Research suggests that providing effective feedback is challenging. To be effective, it should be:About challenging tasks or goals rather than easy ones.Given sparingly so that it is meaningful.About what is right more often than about what is wrong.Specific, accurate and clear, e.g. not just correct or incorrect.Provide examples of what is correct and not just tell students when they are wrong.Encouraging and supportive of further effort without threatening a learners self-esteem.13Small group tuitionIntensive tuition in small groups is very effective.Pupils are usually grouped according to current level of attainment or specific need.It is important to assess pupils needs accurately and provide work at a challenging level with effective feedback and support.The cost effectiveness of one-to-two and one-to-three indicates that greater use of these approaches would be productive in schools.Professional development and evaluation are likely to increase the effectiveness of small group tuition.ApproachAverage impactCostEvidence estimateSummarySmall group tuition4 monthsHigh impact for moderate cost

14Reducing class sizeApproachAverage impactCostEvidence estimateSummaryReducing class size3 monthsModerate impact for high cost

Smaller classes will not make a difference to learning unless the teacher or pupils do something differently in the smaller class.It is likely that the more flexible choices the teacher has for organising learners combined with an increase in the quality or quantity of feedback pupils receive accounts for any gains.Small reductions (e.g. from 30 to 25 pupils) are unlikely to be cost-effective relative to other strategies.Deploying staff (including teaching assistants) so that teachers can work more intensively with smaller groups may be worth exploring.Reducing class sizes for younger children may provide longer term benefits.15Evidence from OfstedReports on PP Sept 2012 and Feb 2013Successful approaches:Unsuccessful approaches

Unseen children: access and achievement 20 years on

16Evidence from Ofsted: successful approachesPP funding ring-fenced to spend on target groupMaintained high expectations of target groupThoroughly analysed which pupils were under-achieving + whyUsed evidence to allocate funding to big-impact strategiesHigh quality teaching, not interventions to compensate for poor teachingUsed achievement data to check interventions effective and made adjustments where necessaryHighly trained support staffSenior leader with oversight of how PP funding is being spentTeachers know which pupils eligible for PPAble to demonstrate impactInvolve governors

Evidence from Ofsted: less successful approachesLack of clarity about intended impact of PP spendingFunding spent on teaching assistants, with little impactPoor monitoring of impactPoor performance management system for support staffNo clear audit trail of where PP money was spentFocus on level 4 or grade C thresholds, so more able under-achievedPP spending not part of school development planUsed poor comparators for performance, thus lowering expectationsPastoral work not focused on desired outcomes for PP pupilsGovernors not involved in decisions about the PP spending

What inspectors are looking forBefore the inspection, RAISE Online is studied for evidence on gaps: How well did FSM pupils attain last year in comparison to other pupils in the school and nationally?How much progress did FSM pupils make last year compared to other pupils in the school and nationally?How well have FSM pupils been performing over time? Is attainment rising? Is the gap narrowing?PP pupil tracking by inspectorDiscussions with PP pupils, parents, staff and governorsStudy of effectiveness of PP spending strategiesStudy of effectiveness of leadership in monitoring and evaluationGovernor involvement

Factors considered by inspectorsQuality of the schools analysis of the performance and needs of PP pupilsSchool rationale for spending PP fundingAppropriateness and level of challenge of schools success criteria Robustness of monitoring and evaluationLevel of involvement of governorsLevel of involvement of pupils, parents and carersImpact on narrowing the gap

National College project on closing the gapsNLEs working in supported schools to narrow the gapCTG must be coherent with wider school improvement policiesOvercome barriersCritical role of dataStaff take ownership of strategiesAudit effectiveness of intervention strategiesBuild into performance managementCreate sustainable changeDraw on good practice elsewhere

21AccountabilityCentralisation and decentralisation the lesson from historyChanges in Ofsted inspection frameworkImportance of the GB in Ofsted inspectionAccountability for impact of the pupil premiumNot Outstanding unless disadvantaged making good progressAll schools judged on attainment level and gap and on progressOne-year data and 3-year rolling averages Creating a good audit trailBuilding your own data setsAccountability direct to parents

22Accountability to parentsObligation to report to parents on PP policies and impactPublish an online account of PP amount and plans to spend itAt end of year, publish what you spent it on and the impactLots of school templates on the internet

but this is about much more than accountability using support to use PP more effectively using curriculum to close the gaps

23Pupil Premium ReviewPP Review for all schools requiring improvement in overall effectiveness and leadership/management and where there are concerns re attainment of disadvantagedSchool will be supported by another head to carry out a sharp Review of how PP is usedto develop a new strategy for using PP effectivelyNCTL list of heads with proven success of achieving good outcomes for disadvantaged. Schools can approach these, or others, to provide support:http://apps.nationalcollege.org.uk/closing_the_gap/index.cfm

24An international perspectiveToday schooling needs to be much more about ways of thinking, involving creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving and decision-making.

Andreas Schleicher OECDTES 16 November 201225Us