Agenda item

The Sub-Committee will receive a briefing note on Pupil Premium in Havering.

The Sub-Committee received a briefing paper on the Pupil Premium Grant (PPG).  The coalition government introduced Pupil Premium funding in 2011.  The purpose of this targeted investment was to close the performance gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers.  These gaps had proved to be persistent and slow to narrow.  In return for these significant levels of investment, schools and governors are held accountable for the impact of the expenditure and for reporting to parents.

The eligibility criteria for the PPG was as follows:

·         Any child who had been entitled to Free School Meals (FSM) at any point in the last six years (“Ever 6”);

·         Children looked after for more than six months continuously at any point the child’s history;

·         Children who had been adopted from local authority care;

·         Any child whose parents were serving in the armed forces.

It was noted that Havering’s figures overall were lower than the national average with 22% in primaries and 26% in secondary, compared with the national figures of 26% in primary schools and 29.7% in secondary schools.  The variation across schools in Havering was varied with the lowest PPG eligibility in 2015-16 was 3.3% and the highest was 53%.

The Sub-Committee noted that nationally the government was spending £2.5 billion a year on this initiative, which equated to approximately 6% of the schools budget.  The rates for each category and allocation for Havering for the financial year 2016-17 were explained.  It was noted that for primary pupils (4,068 pupils) the rate was £1320, for secondary (702 pupils) the rate was £935.  For children adopted from care (100 pupils) and looked after children (203 pupils) the rate was £1900.  It was explained that the schools were responsible to decided how the pupil premium allocated to their school was spent.  Schools were held accountable for their use of the additional funding to support pupils from low-income families and the impact this had on educational attainment.  Schools had to publish online details of their pupil premium allocation, their plans to spend it in the current year and the impact of their actions.

The Sub-Committee looked at a number of graphs which provided details of performance gaps comparing Havering to National, Inner London, Outer London and other statistical neighbours.  It was noted that in Early Year Foundation Stage the gap had narrowed in Havering more quickly than it had nationally, however the gap was still wider than was generally seen across London and other statistical neighbours.  In Key Stage 1 reading, writing and mathematics Havering pupil consistently perform significantly above the national average.  This was higher than the rest of London but was in line with statistical neighbours.  Attainment at Key Stage 2 was the biggest success with both FSM and Non-FSM pupils improving.  It was noted that due to focused work, the FSM pupils’ attainment had improved at a faster rate from -20% in 2013 to -13% in 2015.  This was in line with the national average and our statistical neighbours.

At Key Stage 4, the gap between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students was narrower than both the national average and our statistical neighbours, though the gap remained wider than was usually found in London.  Although the Havering gap was 25% in 2015 there was great local variation, with the smallest gap of 0% (where disadvantaged pupils did as well as their peers); and the largest gap was 35% (where the non-disadvantaged pupils out-performed the disadvantaged).

The Sub-Committee was informed of areas where the local authority could provide support, albeit, often as a voluntary traded arrangement.  These included quality assurance teams visiting the schools to explore the use of PPGs, actions, outcomes and impacts.  Training events on effective use of PPG for school leaders, governors, teachers, including the sharing of effective practice were also set up.  Councillor Challenge Sessions (themes included Pupil Premium practices as well as other focussed areas.  All of the above were well received.

Pupil Premium “Health Checks” or full Pupil Premium Reviews in schools, on a traded basis were very successful and reviewed a number of areas including: Raiseonline, Schools website, Schools policy, Governor Accountability, Budgets and data systems.  OFSTED also used the PPGs as a feature of schools with high aspirations and attainment levels.

It was noted that PPG was now being benefitted at an earlier stage, as the KS4 results showed that with earlier that PPG was introduced the better this was for the educational attainment of the child and the school.  It was important that children were identified earlier, and it was essential that the link with Children’s Centres was put in place for the under 5’s.

The Sub-Committee NOTED the brief and thanked officers for the informative presentation.