1. Narrowing the gaps using pupil premium funding Peter Cox

2. Disclaimer The opinions and views expressed in this presentation are entirely personal and do not represent, in any way, the opinions or views of Ofsted, the Department for Education, or their agents.

3. Objectives  Summarise briefly key findings from Ofsted survey reports  Explain how inspectors evaluate a school’s use of their Pupil Premium funding  Highlight examples of successful practice

4. Some key findings from September 2012 report

5.  Maintain or enhance existing provision  Did not routinely disaggregate Pupil premium funding  In some schools it was clear that spending was not focused on specific groups  Little evidence of a strong focus by governors Some key findings from September 2012 report

6. What were schools spending the Pupil Premium on?

7. What will inspectors look for?  Pre inspection analysis of data  Comparisons to other pupils  Progress over time  Is attainment rising?  Is the gap narrowing?

8. Inspection strategies  Tracking a class or group of pupils  Meeting with a range of stakeholders  Examining the impact of leaders  Other considerations

9. Characteristics of successful approaches from Feb 2013 survey  Ring fenced funding  Pupil premium with lower ability  Analysis of underachievement  Research evidence and experience  Meeting the needs of each learner  Achievement data to inform progress

10. Characteristics of successful approaches from Feb 2013 survey  Support staff  Senior leader with a clear overview  Identification of pupils  Discussion point in appraisal  Governor involvement  Demonstrating impact

11. Characteristics of less successful approaches from Feb 2013 survey  Lack of clarity of impact  Indiscriminate spending  Poor monitoring of impact  Ineffective PM support for support staff  Unclear audit trails  Focus on expected levels of progress

12. Characteristics of less successful approaches from Feb 2013 survey  Isolation in planning  Local verses national comparisons  Pastoral work lacked focus  No governor involvement

13. A coherent strategy from the outset  A named governor  A policy for spending  Close involvement of the finance manager  Clear success criteria  Aims of interventions

14. Identifying levers for improvement  Data tracking  High profile  Vertical tutoring  Effective teaching and learning  Strong IAG  Literacy support  Targeted support  Engagement and enjoyment

15. Identifying levers for improvement  Good attendance  Good facilities for supported self study

16. Involving staff and parents in making decisions  Close staff involvement  Clear and thorough assessment  Encourage parents to apply for funding  Allocation of funding in school

17. A well trained workforce  Teaching assistants not always being maximised to support learning  Planning for the next day  Audit of skills

18. Helping more-able pupils to reach their potential  Identifying factors that were preventing pupils from achieving  One-to-one support  Additional teaching groups  Speech and language programmes

19. Focusing on attendance  Well qualified parent support adviser  ‘Welcome to school’

20. Monitoring and evaluation  Everyone’s responsibility  SLT know of the gaps in achievement  Teachers check and report on progress  Performance management  GB involvement and understanding

21. Thank you  Any questions?