Waterthorpe Nursery Infant School Pupil Premium Strategy Statement

Transcription

1 Waterthorpe Nursery Infant School Pupil Premium Strategy Statement 1. Summary information School Waterthorpe Nursery Infant School Academic Year 2016/17 Total PP budget (as of January census 2016) 58,080 59,980 (including 1 child adopted from care) Date of most recent PP Review September 2016 Total number of pupils (as of September 2016) 166 in main school 37 in nursery Number of pupils eligible for PP (as of January census 2016) Number of pupils eligible for PP (as of September 2016) 45 Ever 6 1 adopted from care 8 EYFS PP 44 Date for next internal review of this strategy Spring Current attainment (based on end of year data) Pupils eligible for PP (your school) Pupils not eligible for PP (national average) % of children achieving GLD at the end of EYFS 60% 52% % of children achieving national standard in reading 65% 68% % of children achieving national standard in writing 82% 70% % of children achieving national standard in mathematics 87% 73% % of children achieving greater depth in national standard in reading 24% 27% % of children achieving greater depth in national standard in writing 0% 16% % of children achieving greater depth in national standard in mathematics 6% 20% % of children meeting the expected standard in the phonics screening check in Y1 45% 70% % of children meeting the expected standard in the phonics screening check in Y2 94% 86%

2 3. Barriers to future attainment (for pupils eligible for PP including high ability) In-school barriers (issues to be addressed in school, such as poor oral language skills) A. Low percentage of children eligible for PP achieved a Good Level of Development in the Foundation Stage B. Children eligible for PP have not made the same level of progress in reading as in maths and writing, largely due to issues of comprehension and limited, wider vocabulary. C. No children eligible for PP achieved greater depth in writing at the end of External barriers (issues which also require action outside school, such as low attendance rates) D. A high proportion of Pupil Premium children in the Foundation Stage had Special Educational Needs and social communication was a key barrier for many children. E. Some Pupil Premium children had a level of attendance classifies as persistent absence 3.1% PP compared to 1.3% non-pp and overall absence was 5.9% for PP compared to 3.9% for non-pp 4. Outcomes s and how they will be measured Success criteria A. More children eligible for PP achieve GLD in the EYFS than previous year. At least 70% of children in receipt of PP achieve a GLD Children eligible for PP achieve in-line with others nationally. 100% of children eligible for PP make expected progress. B. Improved rates of progress in reading and phonics for pupils eligible for PP. 100% of children in receipt of PP make expected progress in reading. At least 70% of children eligible reach the national standard in reading by the end of KS1. 70% children in receipt of PP in Y1 reach the expected standard in the phonics screening check. Lesson observations of reading strategies identify good and outstanding teaching and learning C. More pupils eligible for PP achieve greater depth within the national standard in reading, writing and maths by the end of KS1. 20% of children eligible for PP achieve greater depth in the national standard in reading and maths. 15% of children eligible for PP achieve greater depth in the national standard in writing. Children in receipt of PP achieve similar outcomes to others nationally. D. Increased attendance rates for pupils eligible for PP. Overall attendance for children eligible for PP has reached a minimum rate of 95%.

3 E. Children eligible for PP and their parents become actively engaged at home and school in writing and develop the resilience needed to give and act upon effective feedback. Parents are more knowledgeable about their children s learning and their next steps for progression. 5. Planned expenditure Academic year 2016/17 Persistent absence level of children in receipt of PP in below national figures. Achievement in writing improves with at least 70% of children in receipt of PP achieving national standard. 100% of children in receipt of PP make expected progress. 100% of parents of children targeted attend consultations with teachers and at least one learning workshop 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. i. Quality of teaching for all A. More children eligible for PP achieve GLD in the EYFS than previous year. B. Improved rates of progress in reading for pupils eligible for PP. EYFS training and support through FoS and Literacy consultant English mastery to be researched and developed through consultation with FoS and external consultant research group. What is the evidence and rationale for this choice? Evaluation of outcomes through in-school monitoring and FoS School Improvement groups identifies reading and writing as key areas that reduce the outcomes of a GLD. Cross-school support and pooled resources are the most cost effective way to work on a school improvement approach. EEF states that there are a number of meta-analyses which indicate that, on average, mastery learning approaches are effective, leading to an additional five months progress over the course of a school year compared to traditional approaches. Mastery learning is also one of the top 30 approaches to learning that has greatest impact as recommended by John Hattie in his Visible Learning meta analyses. How will you ensure it is implemented well? All EYFS staff to attend termly FoS meetings All FS2 staff to attend FoS consultant reading training FS2 NQT to attend training programme through FoS and additional sessions Literacy Leader to attend half termly research groups with external consultant and feedback to staff. Literacy Leader to monitor new approaches and provide feedback to staff. Staff lead EYFS Leader Literacy Leader and PP Champion When will you review implementation?

4 Teacher Research Groups (TRGs) established within FoS to discover attitudes to reading and the most effective methods of teaching comprehension and language, including Tower Hamlets language structures. Staff CPD with Teresa Heathcote around the teaching of reading comprehension. Research from EEF states that, on average, reading comprehension approaches improve learning by an additional five months progress over the course of a school year. All staff to attend training. Literacy leader to conduct pupil voice and TRGs, feeding back to staff. Literacy leader to monitor use of newly developed strategies through guided reading drop in sessions and Y2 SPAG drop in sessions. Tower Hamlets used Literacy Leader and PP Champion Phonics, guided reading and SPAG CPD for TAs with Teresa Heathcote. Both John Hattie and EEF state that phonic instruction has an overwhelmingly positive impact upon learning. TAs now deliver additional phonics and guided reading sessions for targeted children and require the necessary training to upskill. PP champion and literacy leader to conduct phonic/gr drop ins Additional sessions to be recorded in pupil Literacy Leader and PP Champion Total budgeted cost 4300

5 ii. Targeted support What is the evidence and rationale for this choice? How will you ensure it is implemented well? Staff lead When will you review implementation? A. Improved rates of progress in reading for pupils eligible for PP. Targeted children receive the one or more of the following interventions based upon need: Dyslexia support Multisensory Phonics One to one reading support and Reading Volunteer Repeated reading programs and phonic instruction have been shown to have a positive impact on learning by the EEF and John Hattie. The FFT Wave 3 programme has been recognised as an effective approach to boosting children's reading and writing. A summary of impact and a detailed report based on research into the progress made by 255 children can be found at Provision mapping created. Parents informed by class teachers TA receive appropriate training TA timetables set accordingly Data analysed Inclusion Leader regularly and leadership time given for this. Regular support given to delivering TAs. Inclusion Leader and TA January 2017 Vocab programs (LEAP and VIP and Talking Partners) used in the EYFS and early stages of Y1 to ensure the earliest possible intervention for children with poor oral language, vocabulary and understanding. The EEF states that, overall, studies of oral language interventions consistently show positive benefits on learning, including oral language skills and reading comprehension. On average, pupils who participate in oral language interventions make approximately five months' additional progress over the course of a year. It also states that, overall, the evidence suggests that early years and pre-school intervention is beneficial. On average, early years interventions have an impact of five additional months' progress, and appear to be particularly beneficial for children from low income families. The school has an excellent track record in improving oral language skills and has specialist TAs trained in NHS approved programmes. Provision mapping created. Parents informed by class teachers TA receive appropriate training TA timetables set accordingly Data analysed and reports produced by Inclusion Leader regularly and additional leadership time given for this. Regular support given to delivering TAs. Inclusion Leader January 2017

6 B. More pupils eligible for PP achieve greater depth within the national standard in reading, writing and maths by the end of KS1. Focussed Literacy and Numeracy support with additional work through the HLTA following assessment and gap analysis. Historical evidence of success for identified children in school shows that children working in these focussed groups with the HLTA made good and outstanding progress and have a much better opportunity of achieving greater depth. Parents informed by class teachers HLTA receive appropriate training Data analysed by headteacher termly and pupil progress reports produced by HLTA Regular support given to delivering HLTA. HLTA and Literacy Leader Total budgeted cost iii. Other approaches 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? B. Improved rates of progress in reading and phonics for pupils eligible for PP. All children, including those in receipt of PP have access to Lexia Reading programme and identified PP children access extracurricular Lexia club. Follow-up access to Lexia at home Half termly review of progress. EEF research states that, overall, studies consistently find that digital technology is associated with moderate learning gains (on average an additional four months). All children in Y1 and Y2 to have an account created for them leader. Parents made aware of the programme and encouraged to access at home. Lexia TA to monitor usage and impact on phonics skills Intervention Leader D.Increased attendance rates for pupils eligible for PP. Attendance Admin Officer to manage monitoring list and do weekly analysis and report for headteacher. Attendance reviews with MAST where necessary. Weekly Attendance at school is essential. We cannot have any impact upon a child s achievement and life chances if they do not attend school regularly and on time. Attendance for some children in receipt of PP was below 95% last year with several having attendance below 90%. Weekly publication of attendance figures to parents Half termly attendance reviews and follow-up letter/meetings with aprents Headteacher Attendance admin support Weekly

7 celebration of children s attendance and half termly prizes, certificates and stickers. Attendance promotions in newsletters and on website. Weekly monitoring of children identified at half-termly reviews Celebration of successes Use of Senior Attendance Officer at MAST for persistent absence worries or punctuality issues. E.Children eligible for PP and their parents become actively engaged at home and school in writing, and develop the resilience needed to give and act upon effective feedback. Parents are more knowledgeable about their child s learning and their next steps for progression. Family Workshops to cover all curriculum areas. Theme for 2016~17 to support school Improvement priority of engaging families, helping them to understand the curriculum and their child s attainment through focussed enquiries. Publication of parent Packs in KS1 on website~ All PP families to receive a hard copy of these following trail with parent governors and parent reps. EEF research states that the association between parental involvement and a child s academic success is well established, but rigorous evaluation of approaches to improve learning through parental involvement is sparser. Our experience shows that the children in our school are more engaged and have greater opportunities to make good progress when parents are engaged and understand how to support their child. Parental engagement data base to be kept Review and evaluation of available resources using identified parent groups headteacher Nurture intervention groups to support children s social communication and emotional well-being: Forest School, Happy to be us, Friendly Stars and Bereavement & Loss group. Feedback by the EEF says that evidence suggests that behaviour interventions can produce large improvements in academic performance along with a decrease in problematic behaviours, though estimated benefits vary widely across programmes. Effect sizes are larger for targeted interventions matched to specific students with particular needs or behavioural issues, than for universal interventions or whole school strategies. Half termly intervention meeting to identify Need Individual reports on progress by Intervention TA Intervention leader Half Total budgeted cost 23880

8 6. Review of expenditure Previous Academic Year i. Quality of teaching for all 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 ii. Targeted support 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 iii. Other approaches 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

9 7. Additional detail In this section you can annex or refer to additional information which you have used to inform the statement above. Our school s total PP spending for is (inc 1900 for LAC). FoS training and consultant support contribution 1300 Training, non-contact costs and resource costs 3000 Intervention Leader costs and non-contact 5200 SENCO non-contact additional costs 600 TA Intervention leader costs Additional Nurture groups staffing and resource costs 6000 HLTA work on progress and greater depth in literacy and Numeracy Online subscriptions for access to electronic programmes 1000 TA Lexia Intervention cost 2850 Attendance interventions and resource costs 2030 Family workshops costs 2000 Publication of materials for families costs 1000 Funding for access to additional support for identified children e.g. breakfast club where attendance an issue 4000