.png){kind=logo}
Conducted by Royston Halford December 2015
The School Website
The Pupil Premium (PP) information is contained in very thorough reports on the website. It details the total amount of PP funding per year received by the school, the spend breakdown from the previous year with an impact statement and the predicted spend for the following year. The trail to find the documents is ‘Home - School Information - Policies’.
The Y7 Catch-up fund information sits in the same section and, again, more than covers statutory requirements.
Recommendations
• Consider displaying the PP report and Y7 Catch-up monies report on the website within a separate section to policies named ‘Statutory Information’. This could contain all of the statutory information required by the DfE which is checked by Ofsted upon inspection.
Initial Telephone Discussion with the PP Co-ordinator 27th November
During this conversation the completed self-evaluation template from the TSC Toolkit was discussed. The information within the template details previous strategies used during 2014/15 as well as newly implemented strategies for 2015/16 to remove barriers and improve the performance for PP students.
t was evident that Quality First Teaching was the school priority and it was explained that a comprehensive, bespoke, whole school database had been devised to assist intervention at class teacher level (wave one).
The evaluation template describes a number of withdrawal initiatives to boost literacy and numeracy skills as well as sessions before the start of school and at the end of the day (Beyond the Bell). Accelerated Reader has been introduced to raise reading ages as well as increase enthusiasm and interest in reading across the school.
From a pastoral perspective, there are initiatives to increase self-esteem, improve behaviour for learning, raise attendance and lower persistent absence. Lack of parental support is also mentioned in the evaluation document as a barrier to PP student achievement
Full day visit 1st December 2015
The day was very well organised to include a meeting with the headteacher, meetings with the PP co-ordinator, the heads and of the English and maths departments, the inclusion leads for English and maths, governors and KS3/KS4 students. Three learning walks were also scheduled.
Meeting with the Assistant Headteacher Inclusion/PP Co-ordinator
Throughout the meeting, the PP coordinator showed tremendous passion and enthusiasm for her role as well as demonstrating creativity and strategic The Rowan learning Trust Pupil Premium Review 3 thinking in the initiatives implemented to remove barriers to learning for disadvantaged students.
The bespoke, whole school database, was demonstrated with the ability to drill down to teachers’ classes, student groups and individual students. The information about each student was very comprehensive and drew information from SIMS. Colour coding highlighted areas for concern or praise and free text boxes displayed comments added by teachers regarding class intervention that had been put in place to increase progress.
The school has moved to ‘life without levels’ and has introduced four broad bands of competence: Enhanced, Higher, Core and Foundation. Based on prior attainment, flight paths to GCSE have been generated.
Teachers are asked to produce seating plans for all classes with PP students subtly highlighted. There is no common format for these plans.
A whole school referral system has been put in place for staff to capture concerns about particular students and to inform potential interventions by the SEN department, the Linc unit or the English and maths departments. Reasons for referrals include adverse behaviour for learning, evidenced by the number of ‘behaviour points’ accrued, poor attendance and other factors external to school. Initial assessments are then conducted to identify the relevant interventions to put in place for students via the appropriate department. Review periods are scheduled to monitor improvement, including post intervention, to ensure students stay on track. The strategic aim of this process is to ensure that no student slips through the net.
Attendance for disadvantaged students improved greatly from 2012/13 to 2013/14 but declined again slightly in 2014/15. However, persistent absence has decreased greatly since 2012/13 and is on a falling trend for the 15% threshold.
Recommendations
• Consider introducing commercially available software for staff to produce seating plans which would make it easier and less time consuming. Some of the software is free and interfaces with SIMS.
• Consider producing a PP action plan that, for each objective, details success criteria with numerical values where possible, timescales for action and/or completion with named people responsible for delivery as well a named person who will monitor the actions. Include an objective for improvement in attendance for PP students in the action plan.
• In preparation for inspection, produce case studies for a couple of the students who had an adverse effect on the attendance figures including the actions school took to try to improve the situation.
• Model persistent absence for all students and PP students on the new 10% threshold for the autumn term 2015 and 2014 to see the impact of the DfE change from 1st September 2015. This may prompt further actions.
Meeting with the Head of Maths
The head of maths presents as a strong leader with a clear strategy to help raise standards for all students.
The expected progress of students in Maths decreased in 2015 to 73% compared to 77% in 2014 but more than expected progress rose by 4%. The inschool gaps for expected progress, and more than expected progress, between disadvantaged and other students narrowed; significantly so with more than expected progress.
Baseline scores on entry to the school are used to identify students who require catch-up intervention. Y7 students at level 3 on entry are withdrawn from MFL lessons all year to provide numeracy skills lessons with HLTAs. Those at level 4c are withdrawn from art, computing or technology subjects for a half term to boost their numeracy.
All KS3 maths homework is based on basic skill methodology to hone numeracy skills and in KS4 all lesson starters are basic skill practices to aid revision. Written feedback to students is provided once every two weeks on assessed pieces of work and DIRT time is given to students in lessons to enable them to respond to the feedback in purple pen.
The maths department has a sophisticated tracker for every individual child detailing progress made but also at the fine detail of maths skill competence. One of three judgements are made following every assessment: ‘skill alert’ (basic), ‘fluent’ or ‘mastery’ (demanding, e.g. problem solving). The series of assessment judgements are then averaged to produce one of the four whole school bands of competence. Class teachers are still refining assessment processes for the new system.
Quality assurance is in place in the department and consists of book scrutiny three times per year, two formal lesson observations per year and regular dropins.
Recommendations
• Consider using the GL 11T Progress Tests on entry. These assessments provide forensic skill level analysis for every student benchmarked against a national dataset.
• Consider working with one or more external maths specialists (SLEs) to moderate the new assessments for challenge and marking accuracy.
Meeting with the Head of English
The head of English has been in post for just over twelve months and five new teachers began in September 2015. During 2014/15 there was a significant level of staff absence in the department.
In 2014/15 expected progress dropped to 62% from 71% in 2013/14 and more than expected progress dropped to 17% from 36%.
Historically the department has not met the needs of low ability students. Those entering at level 3 significantly underperformed at GCSE and students at Level 4 on entry struggled to reach progress made nationally by their peers. It was The Rowan learning Trust Pupil Premium Review 5 established that the English team did not have the experience to make a significant difference in this area so from September 2015 a KS2 teacher was appointed to address this issue. When asked about the impact of this initiative the response was that the first data snapshot was due imminently.
Withdrawal intervention takes place for students not making the expected progress. HLTAs deliver additional English/literacy sessions throughout KS3. In KS4, additional English lessons are available as part of the options process.
The English specific tracker is in development at present. Staff use the whole school database currently.
Quality assurance of teaching is performed by the head of department in conjunction with the heads of KS3 and KS4. The whole school database is monitored together with book scrutiny and learning walks.
Recommendations
• Ensure that new initiatives are monitored closely en-route. A term is a long time in a student’s school career without an impact assessment.
• Bring the English tracker up to the standard of the maths tracker. This will enable closer monitoring of individual student progress to make sure Quality First Teaching is effective. It will also help to spot any trends in teacher competence requiring support. This is especially important in a department with so many new staff.
• Consider using the GL 11T Progress Tests on entry. These assessments provide forensic skill level analysis for every student benchmarked against a national dataset.
• Consider working with one or more external English specialists (SLEs) to moderate the new assessments for challenge and marking accuracy.
Meeting with Governors
Unfortunately, one of the governors was unavailable on the day. The other had a last minute matter to deal with at her school but kindly arranged to take part in a telephone conversation.
When asked about knowledge of student progress data, it was explained that the headteacher shares information at the Standards & Effectiveness committee as well as at full governing body meetings. Y11 progress featured more commonly but all year group data was shared including that of PP students. To help understand the context, data is compared to previous years’ as well as national data.
Governors are assured about the rigour of assessments because the head explains the moderation processes and governors know that SLT are involved to check accuracy and validity. The link inclusion governor and literacy governor meet with the school leads to triangulate this information. Governors are not, aware whether any external moderation takes place with other schools.
Governors know the exact amount of PP funding (and Y7 catch-up money) the school receives and are confident about the use and impact of the funding. The The Rowan learning Trust Pupil Premium Review 6 resources committee receives information about the use of the money and governors are content that value for money is achieved.
The strengths of the school were articulated well by the governor:
• The headteacher and staff strive to do the best for every individual child;
• Pastoral support for disadvantaged and vulnerable children is very strong and the school reaches out to parents to support them;
• The headteacher has a clear vision with high expectations and high standards.
Areas for improvement were:
• The teaching of English;
• A concern over the future financial health of the school.
When asked about the ability of the governing body to challenge and support the school leadership, the governors stated that governors are always well prepared for meetings and frequently have pre-prepared questions. The governor said that they, “Always give the head a grilling.” She also stated that as a governing body they are passionate about improving the life chances of the children and feel that the school is a focal point for the local community.
Meetings with the Inclusion Leads in Maths and English
The maths post holder has responsibility for KS3 but includes PP.
The focus of the conversation was on intervention for those not making expected progress. Based on the Y7 baseline, Level 3 children receive additional maths/numeracy lessons, taught by a combination of teacher and HLTAs, via withdrawal from other subjects throughout the year.
Level 4c students are assessed to identify skills gaps and are also withdrawn from other subjects to take additional maths lessons that run for a half term. These sessions are taught by HLTAs. The small groups are fluid and can change each half term. This regime continues in Y8 and Y9.
Students entering at higher levels who are identified with skills gaps are catered for in BTB maths topic sessions.
The post holder in the English department began in September 2015. This post is dedicated to PP students. Again, the focus of the conversation was about intervention.
The selection of students for intervention is a combination of two processes. Firstly, the English Inclusion Lead uses the whole school database to identify underperforming students and holds conversations with their class teachers to provide a forensic analysis of intervention requirements. Secondly, teachers can refer students to the English Inclusion team for intervention. Students are selected by the team to take part in additional English/literacy lessons by withdrawal from other subjects on a half termly basis. Students of all abilities are then placed on pre-planned, bespoke, intervention pathways to meet their need. HLTAs visit the selected students in some of their other lessons to monitor the effectiveness of the additional lessons and to assist teachers reinforce the strategies.
7 KS4 intervention sessions take place after school.
Meeting with the Headteacher
The headteacher was very honest about the the financial position of the school. It is one of the poorest funded schools in Lancashire and has been in a falling roll position for a few years due to the demography of the area. The 6th Form numbers are also on a declining trend. To ensure a balanced budget while trying to protect PP funding has been a challenge.
One of the initiatives implemented to use PP funding effectively was to utilise HLTAs for PP intervention rather than English and maths teachers. The full impact of this has yet to be determined but, given the geographical position of the school, recruitment of high quality English and maths teachers is also very difficult.
The quality of leadership and the quality of teaching in the English
department has been a concern for some time and, in the past, English staff have contributed little to the improvement of literacy. However, the headteacher feels more confident with the current leadership and staffing.
Meeting with Students
The students were very open, honest and friendly.
They were asked to think about the subject where they felt they learned best and why.
KS3 students named English and maths as the subjects in which they learned best. The reasons given included teacher explanations provided in different ways or formats so that they could understand; clear and precise feedback from teachers, both verbally and written in books and being provided with individual help in lessons. DIRT time provided in lessons was also appreciated by the students so that they could respond to teacher feedback.
Y10 students named a variety of subjects but the most common responses talked about teachers modelling or teachers encouraging other students to model answers or teachers using questions to bring out understanding. Clear, precise written feedback in books was also cited by a few students.
One Y10 student talked about how his drama teacher asked very pertinent questions to many members of the class to scaffold learning and deepen understanding.
Conversely the students were asked to think about a subject where they struggled with learning and why.
Overwhelmingly, the common theme was poor teacher explanation. A large number of students talked about some teachers only being able to explain things in one way. One student said the teacher just gave the same explanation but more slowly and another student said the teacher just talked louder.
The next common theme was about poor quality written feedback in books. The comments made by students on this matter actually emphasised the very high quality feedback they get from other teachers. They knew exactly what worked for them and what didn’t. Students talked about little written feedback from some teachers, vague comments and about teacher handwriting they couldn’t read, therefore the feedback was “pointless”.
One KS3 student mentioned that in his Y8 geography lessons the class was just repeating work covered in Y7 so he didn’t feel he was making any progress.
The Y10 students were asked if they had received any additional class intervention in KS3. Those that did said that it was very helpful. It increased their confidence in maths and one girl said it made her feel better about herself when she was “doing” maths.
When the students were asked if they had an idea what they wished to do when leaving school most KS4 students answered yes; most KS3 students had no idea. They talked about having careers information in, “The lessons about life stuff.”
The Y10 students raised the matter of the new grading system. They were rather vociferous in their comments. They didn’t understand the banding system. They had no idea what grade they were working towards and didn’t like that. A couple of students said they found it really annoying. One Y10 girl said that her sister was in Y7 and she found it very confusing.
Recommendations
• Speak to the boy who talked about repeating geography work to ensure progress is being made.
• Consider whether, for some staff, more training regarding modelling and scaffolding learning is required.
• Consider incorporating information, advice and guidance in subjects as well as through Life Lessons so that students have a goal to aim for which will help focus their attention on schoolwork. Research shows that this is particularly advantageous for boys and disadvantaged students.
• Consider running a student voice session about the new grading system to gain feedback and provide further clarity.
Learning Walks
Eight classes were visited during the day and about ten minutes was spent in each lesson. A snapshot of teaching was observed together with brief scrutiny of books and some discussion with students.
Seven of the classes visited contained the school feedback format in student books. Many of the books displayed ‘What Went Well’ and ‘Even Better If’ feedback from the teacher and, in most cases, the students had responded in purple pen to the EBI comments.
Five English classes were visited. Feedback from the teacher was present in each set of books but the quality was variable. The standard school marking notation was not used consistently. (In the KS3 student group one boy said that The Rowan learning Trust Pupil Premium Review 9 he found the use of the notation symbols very helpful.) The best feedback (valued by students in conversation) was very specific so they knew how to respond. Some feedback was very vague and less helpful for example, ‘Include more detail’. As opposed to, ‘Include more detail about x, y and z’. The feedback from one teacher moved into written dialogue with the students in their books.
Two science lessons were included in the learning walks. In one lesson the books contained teacher feedback but comments were not helpful to the students for example, ‘Do more’. In the other lesson feedback from the teacher was very specific, assisting students with progressing their learning and DIRT time was provided for students to respond in purple pen. One girl in the class said, “I really appreciate the time sir takes to write feedback for me. I find it very helpful.”
Two other girls commented on the new grading system saying that they didn’t like it and felt the teachers seemed awkward about not being able to tell them what GCSE grade they were aiming to achieve.
The quality of display in most classrooms was very vibrant and engaging. Most rooms had a combination of learning materials, e.g. key words and examples of student work. Several of the English classrooms exhibited attractive set book displays for example, ‘An Inspector Calls’. In some of the classroom the learning material text was quite small and couldn’t be easily read from desks.
A common theme noticed throughout the lessons was the type of questioning used by teachers. Many of the questions were closed eliciting one word or very short answers with no follow up. There was very little probing questioning by the teacher of the students. Two points arise from this observation. If the questioning isn’t sophisticated, are some teachers able to assess progress accurately during the lesson to be able to adapt their teaching to meet the needs of students and, are some teachers not scaffolding learning through questioning to maximise progress?
Recommendations
• Some staff require additional support and/or challenge regarding the quality of written feedback.
• Consider using a session with staff to explore the impact of high quality learning materials displayed in rooms which can be read from any desk in a classroom with a view to setting a minimum standard of expectation.
• For some staff, more training is required regarding type, purpose and effectiveness of questioning.
Summary
The progress of disadvantaged students is improving towards that of other students with the same starting points.
The impact of improving Quality First Teaching will be the most successful strategy implemented by school to further increase the progress of every child including the disadvantaged students.
