
Pupil premium spending 2018 – 2019
Summary Information |
|||
Date of most recent pupil premium review: |
July 2019 |
Date of next pupil premium review: |
July 2020 |
Total number of pupils: |
309 |
Total pupil premium budget: |
£54,300 |
Number of pupils eligible for pupil premium: |
39 |
Amount of pupil premium received per child: |
30 x £1320 3 x £300 6 x £2300 |
Strategy Statement |
Pupil Premium funding goes towards a bespoke learning programme for each pupil, based on a detailed analysis of their needs. This includes support for learning, developing social skills and creating enrichment opportunities for the children. We received £54,300 for the year 2018-19. Funding covers various aspects including:
|
Assessment information
EYFS |
|||
|
Pupils eligible for pupil premium (PP) |
Pupils not eligible for PP |
|
|
5 |
School Average |
National average |
Good level of development (GLD) |
2 |
71% |
71.5% (2018) |
Reading |
3 expected |
78% |
|
Writing |
2 expected |
75% |
|
Number |
4 expected |
82% |
|
Shape |
4 expected |
87% |
|
Year 1 Phonics Screening Check |
||
Pupils eligible for PP |
Pupils not eligible for PP |
National average |
1 child achieved expected level |
88% |
82% (2018) |
End of KS1 |
|||
|
Pupils eligible for PP |
Pupils not eligible for PP |
|
|
8 |
School average |
National average |
% achieving expected standard or above in reading, writing and maths |
4/8 (50%) |
58% (2019) |
70% (2018) |
% making expected progress in reading |
6/8 (75%) |
77% |
|
% making expected progress in writing |
6/8 (75%) |
77% |
|
% making expected progress in maths |
7/8 (87.5%) |
77% |
|
End of KS2 |
|||
|
Pupils eligible for PP |
Pupils not eligible for PP |
|
|
9 |
School average |
National average |
% achieving expected standard or above in reading, writing and maths |
3 (33%) |
38% (2019) |
65% |
% making expected progress in reading |
7 (78%) |
65% |
|
% making expected progress in writing |
6 (66%) |
65% |
|
% making expected progress in maths |
3 (33%) |
65% |
|
Barriers to learning
Barriers to Future Attainment |
|
Academic barriers: |
|
A |
Low baseline levels particularly in speaking and listening/PSHE |
B |
Children have poor strategies for long-term memory/gaps in knowledge |
C |
Low self-esteem and social/emotional needs |
Additional Barriers |
|
External barriers |
|
D |
Children do not read at home/engage with enriching experiences in some homes |
E |
Attendance of some PP pupils and many PP children have multiple barriers or high level of SEND |
F |
Many children are isolated at home/on devices thus impacting on social and academic use of language |
Intended Outcomes |
||
Specific outcomes |
Success criteria |
|
A |
To engage pupils more with their learning – particularly reading |
Enthused pupils who read |
B |
To address and support social/emotional needs of pupils |
Emotional resilience |
C |
To support parents and communicate the value of our learning at school |
Parent workshops attended |
D |
To redesign the curriculum to meet the needs of ALL pupils. |
Curriculum designed |
Planned expenditure for current academic year (approximate values)
Academic Year |
|||||
Quality of teaching for all |
|||||
Action |
Intended outcome |
What’s the evidence and rationale for this choice? |
How will you make sure it’s implemented well? |
Staff lead |
When will you review this? |
To redesign the curriculum for ALL to improve sequence and meet pupil needs/address barriers. Knowledge/skills/ Deepening. |
Clear curriculum intent and implementation to meet the needs of all children. |
New OFSTED focus on quality of education. Our children are not retaining important information and knowledge. Not all children are getting the same opportunities.
|
Subject leaders and SMT will monitor lessons, pupil voice with books and feedback from staff and parents. Progress data across the curriculum. |
All |
Termly reviews |
Implementation will be closer linked to mastery approach of modeling and practice.
|
Better modelling and opportunities to practice skills/deepen understanding. |
Mastery approach is already having a positive impact. TRG – maths hub research. |
As above. |
All |
Termly reviews |
Total budgeted cost: |
£1,500 |
||||
Targeted support |
|||||
Action |
Intended outcome |
What’s the evidence and rationale for this choice? |
How will you make sure it’s implemented well? |
Staff lead |
When will you review this? |
Focused groups to address gaps in knowledge and offer opportunities to practice skills. (TA support) |
For children to have a better foundation of knowledge on which to build and deepen understanding. |
Many children do not have these basic foundations and therefore nothing to build on and develop learning. |
Progress data and pupil voice and feedback. |
SMT |
Termly |
Talk Boost to further develop oracy in those with low levels. (TA support) |
For improved oracy to impact on better reasoning. |
Low oracy levels are preventing children from deepening their understanding of core areas. |
Progress data and pupil voice and feedback. |
KBr. And SMT |
Termly |
Total budgeted cost: |
£34,600 TA budget |
||||
Other approaches |
|||||
Action |
Intended outcome |
What’s the evidence and rationale for this choice? |
How will you make sure it’s implemented well? |
Staff lead |
When will you review this? |
Music and enrichment opportunities (inc. residentials/visits) |
Improved access for pupils |
Music benefits brain development and confidence as well as Ride High etc. |
Parent and pupil feedback and music teachers |
ATodd |
July 2020 |
Mental health – social and emotional support FSMs
|
Sound wellbeing for all pupils Children are fed. |
The brain will only learn well when it feels safe and mental health is sound. |
Case studies and parent/pupil feedback. |
LN |
Termly |
Total budgeted cost: |
£14,250 |
Review of expenditure from previous academic year
Previous Academic Year |
||||
Total amount: £54,300 |
||||
Quality of teaching for all |
||||
Action |
Intended outcome |
Impact |
Lessons learned |
Cost |
One to one support for identified needs. |
To close the gap in attainment and ensure expected progress. |
Impact data (above) Also see overall school data.
|
Pupils are not accelerating enough due to gaps in knowledge and foundation building blocks not established. |
£34,663 TA budget |
On-line maths tuition x 10 Year 6 pupils. |
To close the gap in attainment and ensure expected progress. |
|
Pupils who did one to one all got ARE in Y6 SATs |
£5370 |
Talk Boost for speaking and listening. |
Improve oracy and impact on other areas. |
|
|
TA budget |
Targeted support |
||||
Action |
Intended outcome |
Impact |
Lessons learned |
Cost |
Music and enrichment opportunities (inc. residentials/visits) |
To improve learning capacity through music and enrichment. |
Pupils made good progress in other areas of the curriculum. |
Continue this approach |
£1300 |
Mental health – social and emotional support
|
To improve learning capacity through improved social and emotional health. |
Case studies show these children made expected progress despite their barriers. |
Continue and maybe increase this offer. |
£10,866 |
FSMs
|
To ensure children are fed and happy. |
|
Continue. |
£2205 |
Impact on pupil progress (2018-19) (steps increase – internal data)
Pupil premium average progress (6 steps is expected/5 is ok but should be monitored)
Year group |
Number of pupils |
Reading |
Writing |
Maths |
1 |
1 |
+5.7 |
+5.3 |
+4.7 |
2 |
8 (4 are SEND) |
+5.3 |
+5.6 |
+6.4 |
3 |
8 (4 are SEND) |
+5.6 |
+4.0 |
+3.5 |
4 |
3 (1 is SEND) |
+5.3 |
+4.7 |
+4.3 |
5 |
9 (7 are SEND) |
+5.4 |
+5.1 |
+5.9 |
6 |
9 (4 are SEND) |
+6.1 |
+5.5 |
+6.0 |
© Green Park School 2019
Green Park Drive, Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire, MK16 0NH