Pudsey Bolton Royd Primary School

Pudsey Bolton Royd Primary School

Pupil Premium Audit

and

Action PlanSept 2013 V2

Analysis and challenge toolkit for school leaders: primary

On the following pages are modified versions of the tables used by inspectors during the Pupil Premium survey. Schools could use these to inform discussions between school leaders and governors, and help to shape future strategic planning for the use of the Pupil Premium funding. The tools could also be used to aid self-evaluation and may help with preparing for a section 5 or section 8 inspection. The tables can be adapted for future use by changing the dates.They could also be adapted to focus on achievement gaps for any other groups in the school.

Data for the pupil outcomes table for Year 6 should be taken from RAISEonline.
Data for other year groups should be available from the school’s own tracking of pupils’ attainment and progress.

Financial year / Amount of Pupil Premium funding
2011-12 / £35,624
2012-13 / £58,800 increased to £61,054 ( in month10)
2013-14 / £87300
2012-13 / 2013-14
Percentage of FSM pupils
Number of FSM pupils eligible for the Pupil Premium / 98 / @£623 / =£61,054 / 97 / @£900 / =£87,300
Number of looked after pupils eligible for the Pupil Premium / N/A / @£623 / =£0 / N/A / @£900 / =£0
Number of service children eligible for the Pupil Premium / N/A / @£250 / =£0 / N/A / @£900 / =£0
Total / 98 / @£623 / £61,054 / 98 / £87,300

Where are the gaps (Year 6)?

Year 6: Indicator (using data from RAISEonline for 2011 and 2012, and school data for current Year 6. Definition of FSM for this purpose is the same as RAISE – those pupils eligible for the Pupil Premium under the ‘Ever6’ measure. LAC and service children in later section). / 2012 gap between FSM and non FSM / 2013
July
Actual FSM / 2013
July
Actual non FSM / 2013
Actual
gap / Comments/
contextual information
Attainment - Level 4+ in English / -33% / * / * / * / 2012 – 7/22 (32%) FSM - School A or P
Attainment - Level 4+ in Reading / * / 88% / 79% / +9% / NB 14/54 FSM (2013)
Attainment - Level 4+ in Writing / * / 69% / 72% / +8%
Attainment - Level 4+ in mathematics / -24% / 56% / 63% / -3%
Average points score – English / -3.0 APS / * / * / *
Average points score – reading / -2.1 APS / 26.3 APS / 27.0 APS / +0.7 APS
Average points score – writing / -1.4 APS / 25.5 APS / 25.6 APS / +0.6 APS
Average points score – mathematics / -3.2 APS / 25.1 APS / 26.1 APS / -1.0 APS
Achievement – expected progress in Reading / -26% / 82% / 89% / -7%
Achievement – more than expected progress in Reading / * / 20% / 38% / -18%
Achievement – expected progress in mathematics / +1% / 93% / 95% / -2%
Achievement – more than expected progress in mathematics / * / 13% / 18% / -5%
Attendance / /15 / /40
No Persistent absence / 2012 gap between FSM and non FSM / 0% / 0% / 0%

Where are the gaps (other year groups)?

Year group / What does your data analysis tell you about the relative attainment and achievement of FSM and non-FSM pupils for each year group? Are there any gaps? Is there evidence of closing gaps compared with previous years’ data?
Early Years Foundation Stage
Year 1 (consider whether pupils are making expected progress on the basis of their Early Years Foundation Stage score; consider the phonics screening check)
Data to be added once available / Oct 2013 FSM APS Reading = 0.0 APS Writing = 0.0 APS Maths = 0.0APS
Oct 2013 NFSM APS Reading = 0.0 APS Writing = 0.0 APS Maths = 0.0 APS
DifferenceOct: Reading = - 0.0 APS Writing = - 0.0 APS Maths = + 0. 0APS
Number of FSM =
NFSM not on track for Nat Exp of 1A:- Reading, Writing, Maths
Year 2 (consider predicted end of key stage results for reading, writing and mathematics at each sub-level, as well as current data) / Sept 2013 FSM APS Reading = 10.5 APS Writing = 10.5 APS Maths = 10.8 APS
Sept 2013 NFSM APS Reading = 11.3 APS Writing = 11.2 APS Maths = 11.1 APS
DifferenceSept: Reading = -0.8 APS Writing = - 0.7 APS Maths = -0.3 APS
Number of FSM = 12/60
Year 3 / Sept 2013 FSM APS Reading = 15.5 APS Writing = 15.0 APS Maths = 15.3 APS
Sept 2013 NFSM APS Reading = 15.6 APS Writing = 14.8 APS Maths = 15.5 APS
DifferenceSept: Reading = -0.1 APS Writing = +0.2 APS Maths = -0.2 APS
Number of FSM = 20/60
Year 4 / Sept 2013 FSM APS Reading = 18.6 APS Writing = 18.7 APS Maths = 18.4 APS
Sept 2013 NFSM APS Reading = 19.3 APS Writing = 19.0 APS Maths = 19.0 APS
DifferenceSept: Reading = - 0.7 APS Writing = - 0.3 APS Maths = -0.6 APS
Number of FSM = 20/60
Year 5 / Sept 2013 FSM APS Reading = 21.4 APS Writing = 19.6 APS Maths = 20.6 APS
Sept 2013 NFSM APS Reading = 21.5 APS Writing = 20.1 APS Maths = 20.4 APS
Difference: Reading = - 0.1 APS Writing = - 0.5 APS Maths = + 0.2 APS
Number of FSM = 16/5
Year 6 / Sept 2013 FSM APS Reading = 22.7 APS Writing = 22.4 APS Maths = 22.1 APS
Sept 2013 NFSM APS Reading = 24.9 APS Writing = 23.5 APS Maths = 25.2 APS
Difference: Reading = - 2.2 APS Writing = - 1.1 APS Maths = - 3.1 APS
Number of FSM = 17/55
From Sept 2013 to July 2014 data shows that the interventions had the following
impact on the ‘GAP’ between FSM and NFSM
Read / Writing / Maths
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5

Where are the gaps (other eligible groups)?

Group / Comment on predicted outcomes in 2013 and any gaps. Consider attainment, progress, attendance and exclusions.
Looked after children / N/A
Service children / N/A

Reflective questions

To what extent are the strengths and priorities suggested by this data clearly evident in the school’s self-evaluation and improvement plans? If any are missing, outline them below and add them to your improvement plan or use the separate planning and evaluation outline on page 12.
Which strengths are not reflected in your self-evaluation?
Read write inc has had a big impact on attainment in KS1.The implementation of the scheme has been labour intensive to ensure effectiveness. Will continue with this 2013/14
3rd teacher in Y6 has had positive impact on attainment in reading and writing. Progress of FSM exceeds progress of NFSM in reading and in maths. 2012/13 – Will continue with this 2013/14
Additional teacher in Y5 has helped close the gap which has reduced gap - see table above.
Whichpriorities are not reflected in your school improvement plans?
The evaluation of this document will inform the SDP 2014-2015.

Planning and evaluation outline

Pupil Premium used for: / Amount allocated to the intervention / action
(£) / Is this a new or continued activity/cost centre? / Brief summary of the intervention or action, including details of year groups and pupils involved, and the timescale / Specific intended outcomes: how will this intervention or action improve achievement for pupils eligible for the Pupil Premium? What will it achieve if successful? / How will this activity be monitored, when and by whom? How will success be evidenced? / Actual impact: What did the action or activity actually achieve? Be specific: ‘As a result of this action…’
If you plan to repeat this activity, what would you change to improve it next time?
3rd teacher in Y6 0.5FTE to support Eng & maths / £25400 / Continued / Focus group teaching for Eng & Maths in Y6 / Accelerate progress for FSM pupils in danger of not achieving L4 or 2 levels of progress in Eng & Maths across Y6 / Data analysis by HT and DHT. FSM children to achieve 2 levels of progress and closing the APS gap on Non FSM
Half termly review
0.4 FTE teacher to support FSM pupils in Y3 & Y4 / £19050 / Continued / Intervention group teaching and 1 to 1 for Y3 & Y4 pupils / Identify and provide support for pupils who are not SEN but are falling behind Nat Exp / Data analysis by HT and DHT. FSM children to achieve 2 levels of progress and closing the APS gap on Non FSM Half termly review
0.1FTE additional teacher to support Y5 (Maths slower progress when in Y3 and Y4) / £4500 / New / Additional support for Additional support for stuck and slow moving chd / Ensure good pupil progress / Data analysis by HT/DHT
5 hrs additional SA in Y1 to support RWI group / £4100 / Continued / Stuck and slow moving pupils / To ensure all children (not SEN) receive additional focused teaching to ensure they are at least L1 readers by end of year / Data analysis Ht/DHT. Half termly
5 hrs additional SA in Y2 to support RWI group / £4100 / Continued / Stuck and slow moving pupils / To ensure all children (not SEN) receive additional focused teaching to ensure they are at least L2 readers by end of year / Data analysis Ht/DHT. Half termly
Will appoint additional LT Member to lead KS1 phase intervention / £4500 (Diff TLR2b from standard scale) / New / To lead KS1 phase in securing good progress for all children / To ensure a focus lead in pupil progress across KS1 & target interventions to secure progress / Data analysis HT/DHT. Pupil progress meetings
Appoint another teacher to support Year 2 from Aut 2. To provide additional intervention group teaching & secure good progress / 21,800 / New / To provide additional teaching for children in Y2 to secure at least Nat Expectations by end of year and accelerated progress over the year.
TOTAL / £83450 / Leaving a contingency of £3,850 from total allocation of £87,300

Self-review questions for Governing Bodies

Governors’ knowledge and awareness

1. Have leaders and governors considered research and reports about what works to inform their decisions about how to spend the Pupil Premium?
2. Do governors know how much money is allocated to the school for the Pupil Premium? Is this identified in the school’s budget planning?
3. Is there a clearly understood and shared rationale for how this money is spent and what it should achieve? Is this communicated to all stakeholders including parents?
4. Do governors know how the school spends this money? What improvements hasthe allocation brought about? How is this measured and reported to governors and parents via the school’s website (a new requirement)?
5. If this funding is combined with other resources, can governors isolate and check on the impact of the funding and ascertain the difference it is making?
6. Do governors know whether leaders and managers are checking that the actions are working and are of suitable quality?

Leaders and managers’ actions

1. Do the school’s improvement/action plans identify whether there are any issues in the performance of pupils who are eligible for the Pupil Premium?
2. Do the actions noted for improving outcomes for Pupil Premium pupils:

give details of how the resources are to be allocated?

give an overview of the actions to be taken?

give a summary of the expected outcomes?

identify ways of monitoring the effectiveness of these actions as they are ongoing and note who will be responsible for ensuring that this information is passed to governors?

explain what will be evaluated at the end of the action and what measures of success will be applied?

1. Is the leader responsible for this area of the school’s work identified?
2. How do governors keep an ongoing check on these actions and ask pertinent questions about progress ahead of any summary evaluations?
3. Are the progress and outcomes of eligible pupils identified and analysed by the school’s tracking systems? Is this information reported to governors in a way that enables them to see clearly whether the gap in the performance of eligible pupils and other pupils is closing?

Pupils’ progress and attainment

1. Does the summary report of RAISEonline show that there are any gaps in performance between pupils who are eligible for free school meals and those who are not at the end of key stages? (Look at the tables on the previous pages of this document for some indicators to consider)

1. Do the school’s systems enable governors to have a clear picture of the progress and attainment of pupils who are eligible for the Pupil Premiumin all year groups across the school, not just those at the end of key stages?
2. If there are gaps in the attainment of pupils who are eligible for the Pupil Premium and those who are not, are eligible pupils making accelerated progress – are they progressing faster than the expected rate – in order to allow the gaps to close? Even if all pupils make expected progress this will not necessarily make up for previous underperformance.
3. Is the school tracking the attendance, punctuality and behaviour (particularly exclusions) of this group and taking action to address any differences?

Overall, will governors know and be able to intervene quickly if outcomes are not improving in the way that they want them to?

1