Skip to content ↓

Poynton High School

and Performing Arts College

01625 871811

Pupil Premium

Pupil premium strategy statement

  1. Summary information

School

Poynton High School

Academic Year

2016/17

Total PP budget

£102 850

Date of most recent PP Review

Sept 2016

Total number of pupils

1486

Number of pupils eligible for PP

113

Date for next internal review of this strategy

Jan 2017

 

  1. Current attainment

 

Pupils eligible for PP (your school)

Pupils not eligible for PP (national average)

% achieving 5A* - C incl. EM (2015/16 only)

34.3%

74.2%

% achieving expected progress in English / Maths (2015/16 only)

75.0% / 44.1%

84.4% / 74.7%

Progress 8 score average (from 2015/16)

-0.28

+0.09

Attainment 8 score average (from 2015/16)

44.61

57.11

 

  1. Barriers to future attainment (for pupils eligible for PP including high ability)

In-school barriers

  1.  

Literacy skills of some students entering Year 7 who are eligible for PP are lower than for other students, which can prevent them from making good progress in Year 7.

  1.  

Some boys who are eligible for PP are making less progress than girls in most measures.

C.

Small number of PP students within KS3 require enhanced behaviour support systems/

External barriers

D.

Attendance rates for pupils eligible for PP are 90.3% for 2015 - 2016 (below the target for all children of 96%). This reduces their school hours and causes them to fall behind on average.

  1. Outcomes

 

Desired outcomes and how they will be measured

Success criteria

  1.  

High levels of progress in literacy for Year 7students eligible for PP.

Students eligible for PP in Year 7 make more progress by the end of the year than non-PP students so that at least 50% exceed progress targets and 100% meet expected targets. Other students still make at least the expected progress. This will be evidenced through data trawls.

  1.  

Improved rates of progress across KS3 for male students eligible for PP.

Boys who are eligible for PP make as much progress as the girls.  Teams are putting in place wave 1 interventions, monitored by Directors of Learning (DLs) and Director of Progress.

  1.  

Low level behavioural issues are addressed.

Fewer behaviour incidents recorded for these students on the school system (without changing recording practices or standards).

  1.  

Increased attendance rates for students eligible for PP.

Overall attendance among students eligible for PP improves from 90% (2015 – 2016) to 96% with a reduction in fixed term exclusion to less than 15 as well as PA rates.

  1. Planned expenditure

Academic year

2016/17

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.

  1. Quality of teaching for all

Desired outcome

Chosen action/approach

What is the evidence and rationale for this choice?

How will you ensure it is implemented well?

Staff lead(s)

Next review

A. Improved Year 7 literacy progress

Run whole school School Improvement Plan Forums with a literacy focus

We want to offer high quality teaching to all students to boost results and progress.

This SIP Forum was selected to offer a combination of pedagogical knowledge and subject knowledge, and involve internal contributors and peer support.

CPD appraisal target linked to this focus for responsibility holder with clear outcomes stated.

Katherine Greenfield, Literacy Coordinator

Jan 17

B. Improved progress for boys

Deliver whole school training briefings and professional learning seminars with a gender focus

We want to offer high quality teaching to all students to boost results and progress.

In-house CPD sessions offer a high quality level of training, expertise and participation at a low cost.

Staff feedback on CPD offered will be collected via BlueSky.

Margaret Aldridge,

Assistant Head Teacher

Jan 17

A. Improved Year 7 literacy progress

&

B. Improved progress for boys

 

Maintain focus on SMART marking and feedback.

 

Research shows that feedback offered to students is extremely powerful, effective and efficient in boosting student engagement, understanding and performance.

Work scrutinies will highlight best practice and areas for improvement.

Matthew Dean, Deputy Head Teacher

Jan 17

Total budgeted cost

£25 000

 
  1. Targeted support

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?

A. Improved Year 7 literacy progress  

Buddy Reading sessions for PP students

 

Some of the PP students need targeted literacy support to catch up. This is a programme which ran (in this format) last year, evaluated and shown to be effective.

Organise timetable to ensure staff and students delivering provision have sufficient preparation and delivery time.

Data tracking of these students to show impact of the programme.

Pupil Premium Coordinator to liaise with parents of targeted children.

Di Bemowski, Year 7 & Transition Pupil Premium Coordinator

Jan 17 

B. Improved progress for boys

 

Mentoring and intervention (where necessary) provided for cohort.

Some of the PP boys are underachieving and will benefit from participation in a targeted mentoring programme to provide extra support to boost attainment, attitudes, attendance, participation and progress. Small group interventions with highly qualified staff are known to be effective. We want to combine this additional provision with some ‘aspiration’ interventions such as talks from successful former students.

Extra teaching time and preparation time paid for out of PP budget.

Engage with parents/carers and students before intervention begins to address any concerns.

Track data.

DLs & Intervention Managers monitor progress.

Wendy Ryder,

Assistant Head Teacher

&

Intervention Management Team

Jan17

Total budgeted cost

£30 000

  1. Other approaches

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?

C. Low level behaviour at KS3 addressed

Identify a targeted behaviour intervention for cohort of students.

The EEF Toolkit suggests that targeted interventions matched to specific students with particular needs or behavioural issues can be effective.

Ensure identification of students is fair, transparent and properly recorded.

Use team to engage with parents/carers before intervention begins.

Monitor behaviour but also monitor whether improvements in behaviour translate into improved attainment.

Reward points to be a focus for all staff.

Catherine Holyland,

Deputy Head Teacher

&

Behaviour Team

Jan 2017

D. Increased attendance rates

Welfare and Attendance Officer/Student Welfare Officer/Intervention Manager monitor students and follow up quickly on absences and truancies.

First day response provision.

Mentoring provided.

Attainment and progress cannot be improved for students who are not attending school.

Personalised support and mentor assigned to each PA pupil eligible for PP.

Attendance and progress discussed at least fortnightly with PP Coordinator and mentor.

Letters about attendance to parents/carers.

Visit all PA at home to discuss attendance with parents/carers and explore barriers

Wendy Ryder,

Assistant Head Teacher

&

Standards and Student Progress Teams

&

Intervention Management Team

Jan 17

Total budgeted cost

£45 000

  1. Review of expenditure

Previous Academic Year

2015/2016

  1. Quality of teaching for all

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 attainment across the curriculum

Staff attend in-school CPD through training briefings, professional seminars, ILM training, T& L focus of team meeting, SIP forums, TeachMeet

 

Mixed: training has informed approach to building aspiration in school. We measured the impact on attainment for all children, not just PP eligible.

Success criteria: not fully met. Approach shows promise as evident from staff developing questioning technique as seen in lesson observation – best practice shared in briefings.

However, measures show that PP students did not make expected progress.

 

 

Staff were positive about the wide range of CPD opportunities and believe it has affected the quality of the teaching and learning. We will continue the training, and formalise it through the use of BlueSky, linking it more closely to staff appraisal.

£25 000

(inc.10% of key staff salary)

  1. Targeted support

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

Improved Year 7 literacy results

One to one tuition delivered by older PP students through Buddy Reading scheme

High: observed increased progress amongst participating students

Success criteria: met

This seemed to be most effective when the students were chased for attendance. We will continue next year.

£50 000

(inc.10% of key staff salary)

All PP students have an individual profile detailing strengths, barriers to learning, progress, use of funding, QFT strategies

Staff, parents/carers and students contribute to profiles so that information is relevant and up to date.

High: staff can use information to structure lessons and plan activities around the interests, strengths and preferences of the students.

Success criteria: met with room for improvement for frequency of updating information and use by all staff.

This is a very effective and powerful source of information about this cohort of students.  We will continue with this approach and work to further embed their use across whole school and the process of continuously updating information.  This can be done more efficiently for data.

  1. Other approaches

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

Support for social and emotional learning

Use of  Student Support Grants to provide revision materials, cooking ingredients, contributions towards visits or uniform, residentials, Duke of Edinburgh expedition, peripatetic lessons and LSA support
 

High: The research shows that this strategy of Social and Emotional learning has a gain of +4 months (EEF) and one-to-one tuition has a gain of +5 months (EEF)

Success criteria: met

This is a very positive use of the funding and provides opportunities for students to engage in activities and learn skills that they might not otherwise be able to access.  We will continue next year.

£15 000