Pupil Premium
Summary information |
|||||
School |
Cleobury Mortimer Primary School |
||||
Academic Year |
2016-17 |
Total PP budget |
£64080 |
Date of most recent PP Review |
March 2017 |
Total number of pupils |
238 |
Number of pupils eligible for PP |
50 |
Date for next internal review of this strategy |
September 2017 |
Current attainment |
||
|
Pupils eligible for PP (your school) 3 pupils |
Pupils not eligible for PP (national average) |
% achieving in reading, writing and maths |
0% |
60% |
% achieving in reading |
0% |
71% |
% achieving in writing |
33% |
79% |
% achieving in maths |
67% |
75% |
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. |
Oral language skills lower for PP children in reception leading to slow reading progress. |
B. |
Low prior attainment amongst some PP children coupled with gaps in learning and some having additional learning needs supported by SENCO. |
C. |
Low self-esteem and poor motivation. |
External barriers (issues which also require action outside school, such as low attendance rates) |
|
D. |
Lack of home support for learning. |
Desired outcomes |
||
|
Desired outcomes and how they will be measured |
Success criteria |
A. |
Improved oral language skills by the end of EYFS leading to improved phonics awareness. |
Improved phonics screening results. |
B. |
Improved tracking of PP children leading to more effective earlier intervention allowing greater progress. |
Early interventions monitored and data showing improvements. |
C. |
Improved self-esteem and attitude to learning. |
Evidenced by pupil interviews and staff reports. |
D. |
Parents engaging more fully in their children’s learning. |
More home support with learning evidenced by results in school. |
Planned expenditure |
|||||
Academic year |
|
||||
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? |
Improve oral language skills
Improve staff confidence and competence in delivering S&L interventions.
Regularly timetabled staff training including T4R and T4W strategies. |
Train TAs in Elklan to enable them to support children’s language development by implementing specific programs.
Talk First training to be delivered by Spectra.
Investment in long term staff training in order to meet the needs of pupils in oral language. |
Elklan has a proven track record within school evidenced by the progress made by a number of children with specific S&L difficulties.
Proven track record of program.
Maintenance of consistency in approach across the school is a high priority as it maximises the impact of schemes on children’s learning by embedding principles and practice. |
SENCO to monitor progress in collaboration with Lisa Chapman, speech therapist.
All staff will be trained in approach to enable them to work collaboratively and support each other as well as working with identified children.
SLT meetings, PP meetings, staff meeting time |
EH
EH
SLT |
February 2018
February 2018
Ongoing review at PP meetings and in SLT meetings. |
Improved tracking of PP children, particularly those with additional learning needs. |
Monitor progress of PP children, and create a subgroup for monitoring of those with additional needs who are also PP. |
Close monitoring to allow for early intervention ensuring precision interventions are being planned and delivered. |
Use PP meetings to ensure pupils are making progress and measure rates of progress compared to non pupil premium children. |
SLT |
Termly |
Improve self-esteem and increase motivation of PP children. |
Continue to employ youth workers from St Mary’s Youth Project to provide individual and group support.
Continue with No Worries groups. |
Long term school investment in mental health and well-being of all pupils as well as PP pupils. |
Staff Training |
EH/SLT |
Termly PP meetings. |
Total budgeted cost |
12295.00 |
||||
|
|||||
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? |
Improve language skills |
SP and L support for individuals |
Targeted support to allow for precision inteventions. |
To be overseen by Senco and monitored by Speech therapist. |
EH |
February 2018 |
Improve progress of low attaining pupils |
Daily intervention program for both literacy and maths either individually or in small groups in addition to QFT. |
Sustained accelerated progress |
Invest in quality training for TAs and match groups to TAs according to their strengths. |
SLT |
Termly |
Total budgeted cost |
|
||||
|
|||||
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? |
Improve parental engagement with children’s learning
|
Offer Understanding Your Child Course
Offer workshops for parents alongside ‘Open Classrooms’ |
Proven to improve parental engagement and parenting skills
Parents have engaged well with this approach as they find it non-threatening |
Review with provider on a regular basis
Reports from staff on attendance and parent interviews |
MG
HT |
Termly
Termly |
Enhance Self-esteem |
Work with individual mentors provided by Beanstalk and TLG |
Individual support has been very successful over the past few years with proven track record of increasing achievement and also enhancing children’s well-being. |
All interventions are regularly monitored. |
SLT |
Termly |
Total budgeted cost |
£1884 |
Review of expenditure |
||||
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 Phonics levels in Year 1 |
Invested in Phonics teaching and training for staff |
Improved phonics data. 81% pass rate overall in 2016 improving on 59% in 2015. For PP children improved from 40% to 67%. |
Positive outcomes will now be built on making the most of training and developing staff confidence. |
£625 |
|
||||
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 achievement for PP learners at end of KS2 |
Use of TLG mentors/Beanstalk/SMYP mentors |
Success criteria partially met. Impact on those not eligible for PP evidenced by improved outcomes at the end of KS2. |
Need to consider additional learning needs of PP children which skews data . |
|
|
||||
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 self-esteem/well-being of PP children. |
School provide access to Breakfast Club, trips, clubs, residentials for PP children to ensure a sense of belonging |
Extremely successful as children can benefit from all of the activities open to other children within their cohort. Social benefits are huge as is the improvement in well-being and collateral improvement of relationship with PP families. |
We will continue to support the inclusion and access of PP children to all of the activities on offer to all of our children |
£25295 |
Additional detail |
In addition to the work we are doing to support the learning of PP children within primary school, the establishment of our nursery is providing access to good quality education for learners from the age of 2. We have particularly targeted this group as they are the children who often have additional needs, whether as a result of a specific learning difficulty, or because of environmental factors. |