To receive the above presentation.

Clive Haines, Schools Leadership Development Manager provided a handout which illustrated the changes in the outcomes of pupils that received Pupil Premium (PP). Members noted the following key points:

Ø  Phonics standards for year one had increased and the Local Authority (LA) ranked 74^th compared to 148^th in 2016.

Ø  Only 9.2% of pupils were considered as PP which was considerably lower than other LA’s but, that presented challenges because with such a small cohort, it made the numbers seem larger in terms of percentages and averages.

Ø  In 2016, there were 182 disadvantage pupils that received PP, in 2017, that number had dropped to 173.

Ø  Two thirds of children receiving PP met the standards in reading.

Ø  The Royal Borough was ranked at 135 in 2017 for writing compared with 143 in 2016, and 127 in 2017 which was up from 119 for Maths in 2016.

Ø  Nationally, RBWM ranked 115^th for attainment of Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS).

Ø  KS1 and KS2 next steps:

o   Phonics Screening – monitoring taken place with one PP child observed at each visit

o   PP Gap Analysis was still being monitored by Link Advisors with barriers to learning being explored.

o   PP Champions networks had started which enabled practitioners to share good practice and raise expectations for all pupils. The next meeting was due to take place on 20 September 2018.

o   Teaching School Bid for SK2 Literacy re-submitted and awaiting an outcome from the DfE. If successful, there would be a budget of £95k to spend on raising literacy standards.

Ø  Learning from others – next steps:

o   Discussions took place with Richmond and Kingston LA’s regarding reading and writing; after two hours, all three LA’s realised they were all doing the same thing but, the low numbers of PP children in the Borough made the numbers look like targets were not being met as well as the other LA’s.

o   A further School Improvement meeting was scheduled in Term 1 and was to focus on PP with Richmond and Kingston both taking part.

Ø  Example Cluster School Working:

o   Reason: Group of 8 schools working together in the MishMash Group put together a joint School Improvement Plan where there were common areas of development in every school. Where some schools had strengths in areas of weakness for other schools, those schools supported each other to improve in those areas. Every area on the plan was linked to PP focus – a lot of the work done was sharing good practice and what worked well. The groups looked at the whole school curriculum and discussed if it was fit for purpose.

o   Outcome: all schools undertook a survey which looked at common barriers to progress and achievement. The main barriers were:

§  Restricted range of experiences resulting in restricted range of language. The groups looked at having mentors in schools, having children help to mark their work with teachers which had a positive impact. Some data analysis had also been carried out with results looking positive so far.

§  Lack of skills amongst parents to support children.

§  Poor school readiness/poor diet/lack of space to do homework.

§  Low aspirations/expectations.

§  Lack of Meta-cognition skills

o   That formed the ongoing CPD for the following two years:

§  Learning walks in EYFS amongst headteachers to pick up on development of early language skills and parental engagement.

§  Joint CPD for all staff at all schools on whole school Growth Midset approach.

§  Joint CPD on Curriculum Design to ensure the school’s curriculum is suited to particular pupils and was driven by values.

Councillor Airey queried if it was known why there was a difference in percentages between 2016 and 2017 and asked if it was know what the reasons for the changes in percentages were, as the numbers of PP children were smaller so there were fewer meeting standards. The Schools Leadership Development Manager stated that each PP child was worth a larger percentage so it was not necessarily down to any barriers to learning. He added it was hoped that 2018 would show an increase in the percentage of PP children that met standards; it was difficult to find a trend as the Borough was dealing with so few PP children. Alison Penny from the MishMash Cluster Group stated each cohort could potentially have three times more special needs so it was cohort based. Councillor Airey stated it would be interesting data to analyse to include children with Special Educational Needs (SEN), as well as the PP data. She requested the information be circulated to Members so it did not have to wait till the next meeting. Cllr Airey said she knew everyone was working hard but, she wanted the evidence to show why it was looking like the work being carried out wasn’t working. Alison Penny confirmed she had tracked progress made so there was raw data but, that needed to be analysed.

Sarah Cottle from the Nursery Federation stated it might look like the PP children were not meeting targets as they were a brand new cohort that had just started Early Yeas Foundation Stage (EYFS). The Chairman stated that Members needed a written report to know exactly where the Borough was and then decide if the report needed to go to Overview and Scrutiny. The Schools Leadership Development Manager confirmed he could report unvalidated data and then validate it at a later date. Councillor Airey stated it would be good to have a report showing the work that had been done with KS1 and she also appreciated that it was a new cohort so there would only be this year’s data.

Councillor Hollingsworth stated that writing had improved, but maths and reading had got worse. The Schools Leadership Development Manager explained that it had stayed around the same levels. The Borough ranked 143 out of 160 LA’s in 2016 and in 2017, the Borough ranked 117. It was because the Borough had such a small number of PP children so LA’s with a higher number of pupils were likely to have a better outcome. He added that with regards to phonics, the Borough ranked 74 out of 148 LA’s and KS2 was slightly better still. In 2017, the Borough had 17% disadvantaged pupils but, one child made such a difference to percentages as it was such a small cohort. Sarah Cottle commented that the funding for PP was not a significant amount. EYFS received £100 per PP child per term and KS1 the funding was approximately £1,000 for the academic year. The Schools Leadership Development Manager confirmed the schools chose how they spent their funding but, because it was such a small cohort, it was not a significant amount of money whereas, the higher the volume of PP children, the more funding would be available. Alison Penny stated schools could combine their PP funding so they could run programmes and train and upskill staff which had an impact. The Schools Leadership Development Manager explained that such a small amount of funding would not make a huge difference and the schools had to state on a website how the funding was spent and what the outcomes of that spending were. Because some schools only had one or two PP children on role, the funding did not produce a significant outcome.

The Schools Leadership Development Manager stated KS1 was the main area of development and all schools were screened which included both maintained and academy schools.

Alison Penny gave examples of how cluster schools were working to improve standards. She said children could attend good or outstanding schools and good or outstanding after school clubs, however that was still not making up for what children experienced outside of school. More money needed to be invested in early years to help make up the differences between home and school to raise standards. She added the cluster groups tried to mix the children and get them working together. When there were high percentages of children with poor language skills, there were no role models for them to learn from so, buddying them up with children with good language skills helped to raise levels. In schools with a higher percentage of children with poor language skills, there was little opportunity to mix children with those who had wider language.

Lorraine Clark from the Nursery Foundation stated the cluster groups put CPD in for teachers, raised the profile and looked at good practice which would raise attainment for all. All things that were being done were having a positive impact on children. Councillor Airey thanked all of the officers and teaching staff for all their hard work.

Councillor Hollingsworth stated raising standards for all children meant the ratio did not improve. Lorrain Clark responded it helped all the children but, that was not how standards were measured, so progress was being made. One solution that could close the gap was to have some early years children repeat early years again until they were ready to move on but, that was not something that was done in the UK. She added the expectation on children was huge with research from around the world suggesting giving children more time to reach their goals, meant they levelled out when they were older. The Borough needed to be realistic about was children were capable of so that by the time the children were seven years old, they were all at the same levels and developing well. Alison Penny explained that children were not better because they reached stages at certain times, children had to go through stages and milestones at their own pace.

The Chairman queries if the role of volunteers in schools helped children. Lorraine Clark explained research showed it was high quality teaching that made the difference. The Borough had pockets of quality teaching but, there were also teachers that were worried about statistics which could curtail their best practice. The Schools Leadership Development Manager confirmed Ofsted said the Borough had the quality of teachers but, there was a massive issue with recruitment. Alison Penny added that Ofsted were also saying the curriculum was narrowing children’s experiences. Schools were not judged on happy children, or fit and healthy children; schools were judged on data of reading and writing so the data did not paint the whole picture. Councillor Hollingsworth commented that most people in prison were unable to read and write so getting it right as early as possible was essential for society as a whole. Alison Penny commented that schools were also measured on what they did for their more able children as well as making disadvantaged children go above meeting their targets in order to close the gap.

Councillor Hollingsworth asked what the Borough could do to improve outcomes that did not cost a lot of money. Alison Penny stated there were volunteers that went into schools from the local Rotary Clubs but, schools really needed every adult to be very highly skilled. The Chairman stated it was a lovely activity for social skills but not a replacement for good quality teaching.

Action – Schools Leadership Development Manager to circulate SEN information as well as the data on outcomes of PP pupils at KS 1.