Pupil Premium
Pupil Premium is funding allocated to schools by the government. The children who are eligible for this grant are those who are in receipt of free school meals (FSM) or who have been eligible in the last six years of their education (from September 2012). It also includes any children who have parents in the Armed forces or students who are identified as being in foster care (looked after children). Each school has the freedom to decide how the Pupil Premium, allocated to schools per pupil, is spent, as they are best placed to assess what additional provision should be made for the individual pupils at their school.
|
|||||
School |
Langley First School |
||||
Academic Year |
18-19 |
Total PP budget |
£43,480 |
Date of most recent PP Review |
/ |
Total number of pupils |
298 |
Number of pupils eligible for PP |
30 |
Date for next internal review of this strategy |
July 2019 |
|
|
Pupils eligible for PP % |
Pupils not eligible for PP (national average) |
% achieving age expected or above in Early Years |
60 |
88 (57) |
% achieving the expected standard in reading, writing & maths - KS1 K(oequivalent) |
67 |
86 (69) |
% making at least expected progress in reading – KS1 |
67 |
88 (79) |
% making at least expected progress in writing - KS1 |
67 |
89 (74) |
% making at least expected progress in maths – KS1 |
67 |
89 (79) |
|
|
|
% making at least expected progress in reading – year 4 |
80 |
91.9 |
% making at least expected progress in writing – year 4 |
80 |
85.7 |
% making at least expected progress in maths – year 4 |
80 |
91.9 |
|
|||
In-school barriers (issues to be addressed in school, such as poor oral language skills) |
|||
|
Staff perceptions of disadvantaged pupils and the best way to meet their needs |
||
|
Effectiveness of strategies / support |
||
C. |
|
||
External barriers (issues which also require action outside school, such as low attendance rates) |
|||
D. |
Parent’s acceptance of support / guidance on child’s learning. |
||
|
|
||
|
progress for PP children in writing and maths is in line with reading |
PP make rapid progress |
|
|
All staff have clear understanding of effective support for PP children |
High quality intervention delivered |
|
|
Continue to train support staff so that they are able to deliver high quality intervention to groups. |
High quality intervention delivered |
|
|
Further develop staff who deliver the most successful interventions. |
High quality intervention delivered |
|
||||||
|
2018/19 |
|||||
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 |
||||||
|
||||||
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? |
|
Pupils make at least expected progress in writing and maths |
Teaching assistant to have allocated support session for each PP child / group of children |
Time to be spent working though children understanding learning to learn – Support feedback and quality marking opportunities |
Progress meetings Intervention and support minutes Learning walks |
SMT |
Termly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total budgeted cost |
£10,600 |
|||||
|
||||||
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? |
|
Vulnerable pupils supported emotionally as well as academically |
Fund learning mentor and develop the Nurture provision to focus children and families and be proactive in nurturing all vulnerable children. |
We have a rising number of children who have emotional barriers to learning such as anxiety |
Constant feedback from LM to intervention and support group. Logs from LM reviewed by HT Progress meetings Use of Boxall Profile assessment to establish pupil progress |
leaning Mentor |
Ongoing Headteacher |
|
Create a nurture space
|
Learning Mentor to create a safe haven |
Safe haven for vulnerable children to go to when needed. Feel safe and secure reduced possible barriers to learning |
Vulnerable children positive feedback to their time in school through PEPS etc |
Learning Mentor |
|
|
Total budgeted cost |
£20000 |
|||||
|
||||||
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? |
|
All Vulnerable children have access to whole school offer |
Funding for vulnerable children to access music tuition and extra curriculum clubs |
To support vulnerable children in access full entitlement and be part of the school / support concentration and ability to possibly excel in something other than academic studies |
Continue to monitor take up of offer |
A Ternent |
Summer 2018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total budgeted cost |
£5000 |
|
||||
Previous Academic Year |
|
|||
|
||||
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 teacher understanding of vulnerable children |
CPD |
Staff have a good understanding and knowledge of PP and the children that this impacts on within their care. Due to staff changes and movement this is something that would be beneficial to school to continue into future year. |
Need more individualise package for specific staff. All very receptive to opportunity for training. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
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 |
Support vulnerable children emotionally |
Work of Learning Mentor across the school |
The nurture provision is a highly successful strategy which supports disadvantaged pupils beyond the classroom and helps enable them to access the curriculum |
Learning Mentor role has to be flexible to meet the demands of the cohort of children within school and the complexity of the children and parents needs. |
£20000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
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 |
To offer PP children broader experiences then they would normally be able to have |
Fund access to music tuition and orchestra club |
A large percentage of PP children took up the offer of free lessons which has given an opportunity to experience / develop skills otherwise not have the chance. Most have continued with lessons into a second year. |
This opportunity has been excellent for those accessing as they would normally not receive this tuition. The opportunity for them to share with their parents in the concerts is immeasurable. Thought needs to be given to possibly funding keyboard loans for those children who want to play the keyboard but cannot afford one at home to practise |
£2000 |
All PP children given opportunity to develop their resilience and determination |
Fund PP children to attend outward bound pursuit residential trip |
Feedback from children (PP and rest) very positive. Group leaders full of praise for the children, their attitude and behaviour. Excellent way to develop children’s problem solving and resilience. |
Funding this activity needs to continue to ensure that all children have access to this opportunity |
£1255 |
|
In this section you can annex or refer to additional information which you have used to support the sections above. |
Summary information |
|||||
School |
Langley First |
||||
Academic Year |
17-18 |
Total PP budget |
£43,480 |
Date of most recent PP Review |
/ |
Total number of pupils |
298 |
Number of pupils eligible for PP |
30 |
Date for next internal review of this |
January |
Current attainment
|
Pupils |
Pupils |
% achieving |
60 |
88 |
% achieving |
67 |
86 |
% making |
67 |
88 |
% making |
67 |
89 |
% making |
67 |
89 |
|
|
|
% making |
80 |
91.9 |
% making |
80 |
85.7 |
% making |
80 |
91.9 |
3. Barriers to future attainment (for pupils |
|||
In-school barriers (issues |
|||
A. |
Staff perceptions |
||
B. |
Effectiveness of strategies |
||
C. |
|
||
External barriers (issues |
|||
D. |
Parent’s |
||
4. Desired outcomes (Desired |
|
||
A. |
progress for PP children in writing and maths is |
PP make rapid |
|
B. |
All staff have |
High quality |
|
C. |
Continue to train |
High quality |
|
D. |
Further develop |
High quality |
|
|
5. Planned |
||||||
Academic year |
2017-18 |
|||||
The three |
||||||
i. Quality of teaching for all |
||||||
Desired |
Chosen |
What |
How |
Staff |
When |
|
Pupils |
Teaching |
Time to |
Progress Intervention Learning |
SMT |
Termly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total budgeted cost |
£10,600 |
|||||
ii. Targeted support |
||||||
Desired |
Chosen |
What |
How |
Staff |
When |
|
Vulnerable |
Fund |
We have a |
Constant Progress Use of |
leaning Mentor |
Ongoing Headteacher |
|
Create a
|
Learning |
Safe |
Vulnerable |
Learning Mentor |
|
|
Total budgeted cost |
£20000 |
|||||
iii. Other approaches |
||||||
Desired |
Chosen |
What |
How |
Staff |
When |
|
All Vulnerable children have access to whole school offer |
Funding |
To |
Continue |
A Ternent |
Summer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total budgeted cost |
£5000 |
|||||
6. Review of expenditure |
||||
Previous Academic Year |
|
|||
i. Quality of teaching for all |
||||
Desired outcome |
Chosen action / approach |
Estimated impact: Did you meet the success criteria? Include |
Lessons (and whether you will continue with this approach) |
Cost |
Improve teacher |
CPD |
Staff |
Need more individualise |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ii. Targeted support |
||||
Desired outcome |
Chosen action / approach |
Estimated impact: Did you meet the success criteria? Include |
Lessons (and whether you will continue with this approach) |
Cost |
Support |
Work of Learning |
The nurture |
Learning Mentor |
£20000 |
|
|
|
|
|
iii. Other approaches |
||||
Desired outcome |
Chosen action / approach |
Estimated impact: Did you meet the success criteria? Include |
Lessons (and whether you |
Cost |
To offer PP children broader experiences then they would normally be |
Fund access to music tuition and orchestra club |
A large percentage of PP children took up the offer of free lessons which has given an opportunity to experience / |
This opportunity has been excellent for those accessing |
£2000 |
All PP children given opportunity to develop their resilience and |
Fund PP children to attend outward bound pursuit residential trip |
Feedback from children (PP and rest) very positive. Group leaders full |
Funding this activity needs to continue to ensure that all children |
£1255 |
7. Additional detail |
In this section |
|
|||||
School |
Langley First School |
||||
Academic Year |
16-17 |
Total PP budget |
£35,740 |
Date of most recent PP Review |
/ |
Total number of pupils |
298 |
Number of pupils eligible for PP |
24 |
Date for next internal review of this strategy |
January 2017 |
|
|||||
|
Pupils eligible for PP (your school) |
Pupils not eligible for PP (national average) |
|||
% achieving Level 4b or above in reading, writing & maths (or equivalent) |
n/a |
tbc |
|||
% making at least 2 levels of progress in reading (or equivalent) |
n/a |
92% |
|||
% making at least 2 levels of progress in writing (or equivalent) |
n/a |
95% |
|||
% making at least 2 levels of progress in maths (or equivalent) |
n/a |
91% |
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
Points Progress |
Points Progress |
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|||||
In-school barriers (issues to be addressed in school, such as poor oral language skills) |
|||||
|
Staff perceptions of disadvantaged pupils and the best way to meet their needs |
||||
|
Effectiveness of strategies / support |
||||
C. |
|
||||
External barriers (issues which also require action outside school, such as low attendance rates) |
|||||
D. |
Parents acceptance of support / guidance on child’s learning. |
||||
|
|
||||
|
progress for PP children in writing and maths is in line with reading |
PPM make rapid progress |
|||
|
All staff have clear understanding of effective support for PP children |
High quality intervention delivered |
|||
|
Continue to train support staff so that they are able to deliver high quality intervention to groups. |
High quality intervention delivered |
|||
|
Further develop staff who deliver the most successful interventions. |
High quality intervention delivered |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
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 |
||||||
|
||||||
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? |
|
Pupils make at least expected progress in writing and maths |
Teaching assistant to have allocated support session for each PP child / group of children |
Time to be spent working though children understanding learning to learn – Support feedback and quality marking opportunities |
Progress meetings |
SMT |
Termly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total budgeted cost |
£10,600 |
|||||
|
||||||
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? |
|
Vulnerable pupils supported emotionally as well as academically |
Fund learning mentor to support focus children and families and be proactive in nurturing all vulnerable children. |
We have a raising number of children who have emotional barriers to learning such as anxiety |
Constant feedback from LM to intervention and support group. Logs from LM reviewed by HT |
leaning Mentor |
Headteacher |
|
Create a nurture space |
Learning Mentor to create a safe haven |
Safe haven for vulnerable children to go to when needed. Feel safe and secure reduced possible barriers to learning |
Vulnerable children positive feedback to their time in school through PEPS etc |
Learning Mentor |
|
|
Total budgeted cost |
£20000 |
|||||
|
||||||
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? |
|
All Vulnerable children have access to whole school offer |
Funding for vulnerable children to access music tuition and extra curriculum clubs |
To support vulnerable children in access full entitlement and be part of the school / support concentration and ability to possibly excel in something other than academic studies |
Continue to monitor take up of offer |
A Ternent |
Summer 2017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total budgeted cost |
£5000 |
|
||||
Previous Academic Year |
|
|||
|
||||
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 |
Cost |
Improve teacher understanding of vulnerable children |
CPD |
Partly - need to continue to ensure embedded in practice |
Need more individualise package for specific staff. All very receptive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
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 |
Cost |
Support vulnerable children emotionally |
Appointment of Learning Mentor |
Yes – LM able to support specific children and negated need for fixed term exclusion |
|
£20000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
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 |
Cost |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The level of the premium in the financial year 2013-14 was £953 per eligible pupil. This has risen to £1300 per eligible pupil in the financial year 2014-15. 2014-15 financial year has also seen funding for looked after children increase to £1900 and the eligibility be extended to all children who have:
- have been looked after for 1 day or more
- were adopted from care on or after 30 December 2005 left care under:
- a Special Guardianship Order on or after 30 December 2005
- a Residence Order on or after 14 October 1991
Not all of this funding comes direct to school, with a proportion being retained by the Local Authority Virtual School.
For the academic year 2014-15 Langley First School’s Pupil Premium allocation is £24,442
At Langley First School Pupil Premium money is used to ensure all FSM children and LAC children are supported in making at least good academic progress, making a minimum of 2 sub levels progress every school year. The money is used for additional teaching assistant time such as trained Speech and Language workers and to provide opportunities for teachers to plan for effective interventions for groups and individuals. Our aim is to narrow the gap in attainment and educational opportunity between those children attracting pupil premium funding and those children from more privileged backgrounds. We also look to enhance the training of our staff in such areas as attachment disorder, to ensure the most effective and appropriate support can be given to the children with the most need.
Most recently we have also used the grant to;
- fund music lessons for Pupil Children pupils from year 2 to 4.
- provide free school milk for PP children in Reception (once turned 5) to year 2
- pay for/towards school trips including the year 4 residential trip