Pupil premium


This presents a worrying picture of young people being encouraged to believe that they can and will have a better life than that of their families but who ultimately may have a very similar experience.


What can schools do? In recent years, there has been a great deal of work channelled into raising expectations. The Extra Mile programme, for example, set up in September 2008, aimed to raise the attainment and aspirations of disadvantaged students. Targeting pupils entitled to Free School Meals (FSMs), the programme was based upon the identification of 12 activities or approaches which seem to make a real difference to disadvantaged secondary pupils, and seven activities with greatest impact on primary- aged pupils. Secondary activities making a difference include: n Increasing interactive and participatory learning. n Developing a listening campaign. n Promoting a culture of respect for local values. n Broadening pupils’ horizons. n Developing a culture of achievement. n Offering a more relevant curriculum. n Building pupils’ repertoire of language. n Developing social, emotional and behavioural skills. n Cultivating traditional values. n Tracking pupils’ progress and intervening promptly. n Developing effective rewards and incentive schemes. n Supporting pupils at transition points. Primary activities include: n Providing a coherent curriculum with a strong focus on speaking and listening.


n Engaging pupils in their learning. n Helping pupils to articulate and manage their emotions. n Broadening pupils’ horizons by providing a wide range of stimulating activities.


n Providing support at transition points. n Recruiting, developing and retaining staff with empathy for the pupils and their backgrounds.


n Promoting and valuing partnerships with parents/carers and the local community.


These lists clearly demonstrate the importance of culture, attitude and


environment for pupils. Will such activities flourish under the banner of pupil premiums? Even if they do and the impact on attainment is positive, will other aspects of our society enable the raised aspirations to be fulfilled? The promised flexibility in setting teacher salaries might result in


schools in challenging areas offering more money for the best teachers to work there. However, the experience of EPAs would suggest that raising teachers’ salaries was insufficient as a strategy on its own. Perhaps a greater knowledge of what works for disadvantaged pupils applied along with an increase in salaries might be more effective. Certainly the issues for the inner city are complex and difficult to address. Are pupil premiums the solution?


Will pupil premiums make the


difference? The report, Poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2010, by the Institute of Fiscal Studies,


is sceptical about the effect which pupil premiums might have. It refers to a number of the coalition proposals including pupil premiums and suggests, “it is very unlikely that these measures alone would be enough to meet the 2020 child poverty targets”. Not a surprising conclusion considering the distance to go. Perhaps before we can really get the measure of the premiums we need


to be furnished with a few more details. For example, will schools be free to spend the money without any ring-fencing? If so, how do we know that it will not be used to shore-up resources in the wake of reduced budgets? How will the funding be allocated? Determining what constitutes


a deprived area or child is not an easy matter. In the 1970s, there was debate about how EPA money was distributed and whether it should be areas, schools or individuals that were funded. Within the most deprived areas there are schools that attract more affluent families. Equally there


“It could work if we are able to use the


extra money to provide one-to-one tuition. However, if the money isn’t ring-fenced


for specific intervention then it could just get sucked up into schools’ budgets”


are schools in relatively affluent areas where pupils congregate from disadvantaged families. The use of the FSM indicator has also been debated. Not all entitled


families apply and the tendency to do so can vary according to culture. Will the premiums automatically follow a pupil described as “disadvantaged” irrespective of their educational attainment? After all, not all children in receipt of FSM do badly nor do they necessarily have low aspirations. Disadvantage is not a term that applies equally to all families with low


incomes. In some cases, families with few resources carry many of the other determinants of success. Many children do live in poverty but with parents who have high expectations for what they might achieve and who provide the encouragement and support to make it happen.


What do you think? Headteacher Update asked a selection of primary school headteachers for their reaction to the pupil premium proposal. Overall they were largely positive with plenty of questions and some caveats. Paul Hussey, of Caroline Haslett Primary School in Milton Keynes, is clear: “What has most impact on standards in a school is the quality of teaching. If premium funding resulted in schools in disadvantaged areas being able to attract the best teachers then premium


14


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32