This information is regularly updated.
The Pupil Premium is additional funding which is allocated to schools on the basis of the number of pupils who have been eligible for free school meals (FSM) at any point over the last six years (known as ‘Ever 6 FSM’). The Pupil Premium is aimed at addressing the current underlying inequalities which exist between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their more affluent peers.
The Pupil premium also provides funding for Children who have been in local-authority care for 1 day or more and the children of service personnel.
The Pupil Premium Grant (PPG) per pupil for 2015-2016 is as follows
|Disadvantaged pupils||Pupil Premium per pupil|
|Pupils in Year Groups 7 to 11 recorded as Ever 6 FSM||£935|
|Looked After Children (LAC)||£1,900|
|Children adopted from care under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and children who have left care under a Special Guardianship or Residence Order||£1,900|
|Pupils in Year Groups R to 11 recorded as Ever 4 Service Child or in receipt of a child pension from the Ministry of Defence.||£300|
The Pupil Premium Grant for OPHS
|Number of pupils and pupil premium grant (PPG) received|
|Total number of pupils on roll||1652|
|Total number of pupils eligible for PPG||446|
|Amount of PPG received per pupil||£935|
|Total amount of PPG received 2015-16 (not received allocation for 2016-17)||£354,655|
This figure might change slightly at the end of the financial year, which is April 2017. The amount will be updated then.
Details of how we spent our allocation
At Oaks Park, we strongly believe that all students have a right to reach their potential, irrespective of their background. To have the biggest impact on diminishing the achievement difference, we have utilised the research data published by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) and the Sutton Trust 2011. According to the research, one of the biggest contributors in diminishing the achievement difference is to improve the quality of teaching. Hence, we have focused a lot on improving the quality of teaching. Considering all evidence available and analysing the needs of the disadvantaged students at Oaks Park, we have spent our PPG on the following areas:
- 1:1 tuition in English & Maths
- Small group tuition
- Continued provision of pastoral support assistants
- Additional support options in English & Maths
- Various CPD provisions for teachers
- Sound training for students to improve their literacy
- Subscription to ‘PiXL’ to increase the capacity of our teachers and middle leaders in diminishing the difference
- Supporting students to fund educational trips
- Providing free breakfast for a healthy start of the day
- Supporting students to buy equipments and resources.
- Peer Mentoring scheme
- Ex-student, expert in Science/Maths/English proving support
- Pastoral Assistances working with students and their parents
- Zap the Gap – CPD for teachers to diminish performance difference without increasing workload
Currently we are analysing and evaluating the impact of these initiatives to make decisions on future spending.
Summary of impacts on the attainment of disadvantaged students:
2016 GCSE results:
The difference between the performance of our Disadvantaged students and others were disappointingly wide in 2015. So, in 2015-16 academic year, diminishing the differences became our key school priority. Through all the initiatives mentioned above and a collective effort from all members of staff, we have made a significant progress in diminishing the differences. The table below summarises the improvements we made in 2016 compared to 2015:
|Performance measures||2015 (in-school difference)||2016 (in-school difference)||2015 (Compared to all National)||2016 (Compared to all National)|
|Basics (% A*-C including Eng & Maths)||36.8%||13.8%||27.4%||10.9%|
|% 5 A*-C including Eng & Maths||36.3%||15.9%||25.4||13.5%|
|*In 2016 our aim was to reduce the difference below 20%|
According to the new DfE performance measures for schools, we need to compare the difference of the Disadvantaged students’ performance against all national students. So, we have made significant progress towards diminishing the performance differences.
The following graph is showing how the difference between the performance of Disadvantaged students and other students in school has diminished this year:
DfE publishes a set of statistics regarding the Disadvantaged Students. The table below compares the 2015 and 2016 (unvalidated) OPHS figures:
|Number of disadvantaged pupils in the Progress 8 score||72||83|
|% of disadvantaged pupils achieving a good pass (C) in English and maths||30.60%||47%|
|Average Attainment 8 score per disadvantaged pupil||38.96||41.8|
|Progress 8 score for disadvantaged pupils||-0.49||-0.43|
|Progress 8 score for disadvantaged pupils Maths||-0.71||-0.39|
|Progress 8 score for disadvantaged pupils English||-0.01||-0.08|
|Progress 8 score for disadvantaged pupils English Baccalaureate slots||-0.82||-0.81|
|Progress 8 score for disadvantaged pupils Open slots||-0.32||-0.32|
|% of disadvantaged pupils entering the English Baccalaureate||25%||22%|
|% of disadvantaged pupils achieving English Baccalaureate||13.90%||13%|
Details of how we intend to spend our allocation:
Currently we are working with all year groups to close the performance differences. The differences are significantly smaller, compared to the past, and we are expecting that we will not have any significant difference within two years. The main reason behind our brilliant success with the current students is twofold:
- Early intervention
- We started putting significantly more effort with KS3
- We have managed to help the PP students make better progress by early intervention
- We found it significantly easier to grow aspirations among younger students
- Adapting our approach
- We have evaluated our past initiatives and adapted our approach to improve impact
- We are evolving the Feedback and Marking practice as this has one of the highest impact on diminishing the difference
- We have changed the approach in our staff development to facilitate diminishing the difference
We are currently evaluating the impacts of the other initiatives in details to make a decision about future spending. Given the success we are having with our current students, most of the current initiatives will continue in the future. The two main new areas of spending will be:
- Improving the quality of Feedback
- According to the Education Endowment Foundation, effective feedback has the higest impact in diminishing the performance differences.
- We have formed a working party this year to conduct further research in this initiative and we are launching a whole school project in September
- Meeting the needs of individual teachers though evaluation and training:
- We are completely redesigning our CPD programme
- In the first instance, we will be assessing individual teachers’ effectiveness in diminishing the difference
- We will then have coaching sessions to plan development map to improve effectiveness
- We will then provide appropriate training that can be:
- Through internal CPD
- Though our Teaching School
- Through PiXL
- Though other CPD provider
- Five Step Action Plan:
- Seeing the success of this initiative in MFL, we would launch it across the whole school.
- It requires the use of data rich seating plan and personalised feedback
We will update this document regularly to keep everyone informed regarding our progress.