A Quick Guide to Pupil Premium Spending

Interesting Data Based on 2013 data the gap between FSM and non FSM students gets wider as students get older (19%: L4 at the end of KS2 to 27%: 5A*-CEM). The volatility in C/D borderline grades and current GCSE entry policies may widen this gap further There is a gap between the performance of schools and LAs in narrowing the gap The smallest gaps are in schools with the highest and lowest numbers of FSM students In 15% of schools, FSM attainment is above the national average for all pupils Research by the Sutton Trust in 2011 suggested that the quality of teaching has a greater effect on disadvantaged students

Characteristics of effective PP action Proper analysis of where pupils are underachieving and why Good use of research evidence, including the EEF Toolkit, when choosing intervention activities Focus on high quality teaching, rather than relying on interventions to compensate The best teachers lead intervention groups Frequent use of achievement data to check effectiveness of interventions. School adjust techniques constantly, rather than waiting until after the intervention Systematic focus on clear pupil feedback and advice for improving their work Designated senior leader has clear overview of the funding allocation All teachers are aware of their Premium children so they can take responsibility for progress Strategies are available for improving attendance, behaviour or family links if these are an issue Performance management of staff includes discussions about Premium children

Characteristics of poor PP action A lack of clarity about intended impact Indiscriminate spending on teaching assistants No monitoring of quality/impact of interventions An unclear audit trail Focus solely on pupils attaining the Level 4 benchmarks (and not any higher) Pupil Premium is spent in isolation and is not part of school development plan School compares performance to local, not national, data Pastoral work is not focused on the desired outcomes for pupils Schools cannot present evidence to show whether work had been effective Governors are not involved in taking decisions

Strategies Unwavering commitment to closing gaps High quality teaching Robust tracking Forensically targeted intervention Strategies to improve behaviour & attendance