Unseen children: under the spotlight

#OfstedSE

Unseen children: under the spotlight

Matthew Coffey HMI

Regional Director, South East

Twitter: Ofsted_McoffeyHashtag: #OfstedSE

#OfstedSE

Unseen children: under the spotlight

Sir Michael Wilshaw

Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, Ofsted

#OfstedSE

Unseen children: under the spotlight

Dr John Dunford OBE

National pupil premium champion

#OfstedSE

Using the Pupil Premium to narrow the gap across the south-east

7 March 2014

John DunfordNational Pupil Premium Champion

5

The priorities

Raising achievement and

closing the gap

6

Attainment

Time

PP pupilsOther pupils

The ambition

"Our data shows it doesn't matter if you go to a school in Britain, Finland or Japan, students from a privileged background tend to do well everywhere. What really distinguishes education systems is their capacity to deploy resources where they can make the most difference. Your effect as a teacher is a lot bigger for a student who doesn't have a privileged background than for a student who has lots of educational resources.“Andreas Schleicher – OECD

8

Pupil premium: the gap in 2013 The gap gets wider as pupils get older:

19% gap (60%: 79%) in level 4 at 11 27% gap (38%: 65%) in 5A-CsEM at 16

Big variations between schools and between LAs Level 4 gap: Newham 4%; Hampshire 22%; Kent 23%; W

Berks 25%; Wokingham 29% GCSE gap: London under 20%; Surrey 32%; Hampshire

35%; W Berks 35%; Wokingham 39% Attainment of PP pupils Level 4: Camden 79%; Reading/W Berks 56%; West/East

Sussex 55%; Wokingham 54% GCSE: Tower Hamlets 63%; W Berks 32%; Hampshire

31%; IoW 29%; Bracknell Forest 27%

Smallest gaps in schools with high or low FSM

9

Percentage of Key Stage 4 pupils eligible for free school meals attaining the GCSE benchmarkby secondary schools, in deciles from low to high proportions of pupils eligible for free school meals

Data based on 2012 Key Stage 4 validated data. Figures represent all open secondary schools that have had a published section 5 inspection as at 31 December 2012. Schools with percentage figures exactly on the decile boundary have been included in the lower decile.

Focus for the pupil premium

Prioritise gaps: Deprivation – Looked-after children – Gender – Ethnic group

There are good and bad ways to close the gap, so focus on raising attainment of PP-eligible learners

Use evidence of what works Using curriculum to raise FSM attainment Focus relentlessly on the quality of teaching

and learning

11

The evidence

The government isn’t telling schools how to close the gap

It’s for schools to decide how to use PP

13

The evidence

Seeking out excellent practice in other schools http://apps.nationalcollege.org.uk/closing_the_gap/index.cfm

Using the Education Endowment Foundation toolkit http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/toolkit/

Using conclusions from Ofsted surveys http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/pupil-premium-how-schools-are-spending-funding-successfully-maximise-achievement

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/unseen-children-access-and-achievement-20-years

14

Professional networks

Seeking out excellent practice in closing gap

Looking out, not looking up Encouraging staff to build professional

networks – policy isn’t just made in the head’s office

Local, regional, national, international evidence

How effective are your networks? Who can help you to build new networks? Start a pupil premium co-ordinators’

network locally?

15

EEF Toolkit

16

Small group tuition

• Intensive tuition in small groups is very effective.• Pupils are usually grouped according to current level of attainment or

specific need.• It is important to assess pupils’ needs accurately and provide work at a

challenging level with effective feedback and support.• The cost effectiveness of one-to-two and one-to-three indicates that

greater use of these approaches would be productive in schools.• Professional development and evaluation are likely to increase the

effectiveness of small group tuition.

ApproachAverage impact

CostEvidence estimate

Summary

Small group tuition

4 months £££High impact for moderate cost

Evidence from Ofsted

Reports on PP – Sept 2012 and Feb 2013 Successful approaches: Unsuccessful approaches

Unseen children: access and achievement 20 years on

18

Evidence from Ofsted: successful approaches

PP funding ring-fenced to spend on target group Maintained high expectations of target group Thoroughly analysed which pupils were under-achieving +

why Used evidence to allocate funding to big-impact strategies High quality teaching, not interventions to compensate for

poor teaching Used achievement data to check interventions effective

and made adjustments where necessary Highly trained support staff Senior leader with oversight of how PP funding is being

spent Teachers know which pupils eligible for PP Able to demonstrate impact Involve governors

Evidence from Ofsted: less successful approaches

Lack of clarity about intended impact of PP spending Funding spent on teaching assistants, with little impact Poor monitoring of impact Poor performance management system for support staff No clear audit trail of where PP money was spent Focus on level 4 or grade C thresholds, so more able

under-achieved PP spending not part of school development plan Used poor comparators for performance, thus lowering

expectations Pastoral work not focused on desired outcomes for PP

pupils Governors not involved in decisions about the PP spending

Choosing your school strategies Whole-school strategiesWhole-school strategies Needs of individual pupilsNeeds of individual pupils

Long-term Short-term

Teaching and learning strategiesTeaching and learning strategies Improving numeracy and literacyImproving numeracy and literacy Improving test and exam resultsImproving test and exam results Raising aspirationsRaising aspirations Pastoral support strategiesPastoral support strategies

21

TARGETED STRATEGIES FOR

PUPILS ELIGIBLE FOR FSM

…which specifically benefit FSM pupils

STRATEGIES FOR UNDER-PERFORMING PUPILS

…which benefit FSM and other under-achieving pupils

WHOLE SCHOOL STRATEGIES ...which benefit

all pupils

GOVERNMENT POLICY…which targets social mobility

EXAMPLE STRATEGIES TO CLOSE ATTAINMENT GAPS BETWEEN PUPILS ELIGIBLE FOR FREE SCHOOL MEALS AND THEIR PEERS

Targeted strategies for FSM pupils might include…• Explicit school-level strategy to identify and support FSM pupils e.g.

through targeted funding• Incentives and targeting of extended services and parental support• Subsidising school trips and other learning resources• Additional residential and summer camps• Interventions to manage key transitions between stages or between

schools• Dedicated senior leadership champion, or lead worker to co-ordinate

support programme

Targeted strategies for under-performing and other pupils might include…• Early intervention and targeted learning interventions• One-to-one support and other ‘catch-up’ provision• Rigorous monitoring and evaluation of impact of targeted interventions• Extended services (e.g. breakfast and after-school clubs, including

homework and study support) and multi-agency support• Targeted parental engagements, including raising aspirations and

developing parenting skills• In-school dedicated pastoral and wellbeing support and outreach• Developing confidence and self-esteem through pupil voice,

empowering student mentors, sport, music, or other programmes such as SEALTARGETED STRATEGIES FOR

PUPILS ELIGIBLE FOR FSM …which specifically benefit

FSM pupils

STRATEGIES FOR UNDER-PERFORMING PUPILS

…which benefit FSM and other under-achieving pupils

Whole school strategies might include…• Quality teaching and learning, consistent across the school,

supported by strong CPD culture, observation/moderation and coaching

• Engaging and relevant curriculum, personalised to pupil needs• Pupil level tracking, assessment and monitoring• Quality assessment for learning• Effective reward, behaviour and attendance policies• High quality learning environment• Inclusive and positive school culture, underpinned by values and

‘moral purpose’ that all pupils will achieve• Effective senior leadership team with ambition, vision, and high

expectations of staff and all pupils

WHOLE SCHOOL STRATEGIES ...which benefit

all pupils

Source: Rea and Hill , 2011, Does School-to-School Support close the gap? National College for School Leadership

National College project on closing the gaps

NLEs working in supported schools to narrow the gap

CTG must be coherent with wider school improvement policies

Overcome barriers Critical role of data Staff take ownership of strategies Audit effectiveness of intervention strategies Build into performance management Create sustainable change Draw on good practice elsewhere

24

National College Project on CTGSeven principles about effective support from system leaders1)Work on closing gaps needs to be part of the initial diagnostic or terms of engagement2)Leadership approaches will be different depending on the role of the system leader3)Importance of using the data to expose issues, gaps and progress of targeted pupils4)Importance of following up the data with a review of the barriers - to understand where the priorities that need attention5)Use evidence on what works to help determine the appropriate strategies to raise attainment with targeted pupils

6)Wider application of interventions to focus on whole school issues where the data or analysis of barriers showed this is necessary7)Monitor progress and evaluate the impact of the interventions

25

National College Project on CTG

Five barriers which NLEs encountered1)NLEs had to work to gain consent to, and real ownership of, the need to address the issue2)Data and tracking evidence didn’t exist or wasn’t robust enough on which to base action to close gaps in attainment3)Some schools didn’t believe that focussing on closing gaps was right for them at that time – too many other whole school issues to resolve first; others that CTG was not seen as a priority – until the data review exposed that it was4)Communication within the supported school was poor and so the value and impact of the work was dissipated or lost5)Interventions were not always successful. This should be a basis for further analysis, learning, and revised/new interventions, rather than despondency at failure

26

STRATEGIES FOR UNDER-PERFORMING PUPILS

…which benefit FSM and other under-achieving pupils

EXAMPLES OF LEADERSHIP ATTRIBUTES AND SKILLS NEEDED BY NLEs TO HELP CLOSE GAPS IN ATTAINMENT …

KEY ATTRIBUTES

• A commitment to social justice and to improving life chances for children who are disadvantaged

• A commitment to building honest and trusting relationship between senior leaders in NSS and partner schools

• Commitment to learning from a partner school with a different socio-economic context

• Resilience in persevering with tough challenges

• A willingness to adapt and learn from experience as projects develops

• Ability to analyse and quickly understand and prioritise the challenges and context facing the partner school

• Ability to select and deploy the strategies appropriate to the context that will help to improve the systems, culture and practice in the partner school

• Good judgement in understanding how to balance interventions focused on whole school, target groups and FSM pupils

• Ability to use and track data and act on the implications down to individual pupil level

• Ability to change culture and aspirations

• Ability to communicate and engage pupils, staff and parents in a change process

KEY SKILLS KEY EXAMPLES

• NLE reviews the pupil level performance data at the point of ‘due diligence’ to establish priorities

• NLE and staff from the NSS model and coach effective interventions for targeted pupils

• NLE and staff from NSS help to establish effective monitoring and tracking systems which allow the NLE to engage the school leaders in the partner school in discussion about the progress of the FSM pupils

• NLE supports the improvement of effective relations and communications with parents

• Coaching and mentoring from NLE and NSS staff help to re-energise the partner school’s culture and moral purpose “reminding all of us why we became teachers in the first place” (Deputy from a NSS)

Source: Rea and Hill , 2011, Does School-to-School Support close the gap? National College for School Leadership

Accountability

Accountability for impact of the pupil premium School by school Area-wide At a system level

Creating a good audit trail Building your own data sets Accountability direct to parents

28

Creating a good audit trail Outcome measures

FSM / Non-FSM attainment over time Gap over time Attendance over time Progress Destination data

The audit trail PP funding Strategies adopted Implementation Monitoring mechanisms and results Measured impact Evaluating each strategy: ‘What does this mean?’ Improving: ‘What do we do now?’

 29

Accountability to parents

Obligation to report to parents on PP policies and impact Publish an online account of PP amount and plans to spend

it At end of year, publish what you spent it on and the

impact Lots of school templates on the internet

… but this is about much more than accountability … … using support to use PP more effectively … … using curriculum to close the gaps …

30

An international perspective

“Today schooling needs to be much more about ways of thinking, involving creativity, critical thinking, problem-solving and decision-making.”

Andreas Schleicher – OECD

TES 16 November 2012

31

Using curriculum freedoms

School curriculum bigger than National Curriculum What curriculum does a C21 young person need? What curriculum does most for disadvantaged? Developing knowledge, skills and personal qualities What skills and personal qualities to develop?

CBI list? Your own list? Prepared for effective study, work-ready, life-ready

32

33

The starting point

Get buy-in at school

Use evidence to decide strategy

Training in depth

Change practice

Make an impact

Evaluate effectiveness

National Pupil Premium Champion

Contact John Dunford atPupilPremium.CHAMPION@education.gsi.gov.uk

Twitter: @johndunford

35

Unseen children: under the spotlight

#OfstedSE

Unseen children: under the spotlight

Dr Kevan Collins

Chief Executive, Education Endowment Foundation

#OfstedSE

Closing the gap – follow the evidence…

Ofsted South East leadership conference 7 March 2014

info@eefoundation.org.uk www.educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk

@EducEndowFoundn

Introduction

• The EEF is an independent charity dedicated to breaking the link between family income and educational achievement.

• In 2011 the Education Endowment Foundation was set up by Sutton Trust as lead charity in partnership with the Impetus Trust. The EEF is funded by a Department for Education grant of £125m and will spend over £220m over its fifteen year lifespan.

• In 2013, the EEF was named with The Sutton Trust as the government-designated ‘What Works’ centre for improving education outcomes for school-aged children.

The EEF approach

We believe that more evidence can help.

But what does it mean in practice?

An evidence-informed approach can help us:

•Capture the maximum possible benefit from spending•Focus our effort where it will make the most difference•Resist fads and fakes

Applying evidence in practice

External evidence summarised in the Toolkit can be used to inform choices.

Step 2: Identifying possible solutions

Evaluate the impact of your decisions and identify potential improvements for the future.

Step 4: Did it work?

Mobilise the knowledge and use the findings to inform the work of the school to grow or stop

the intervention.

Step 5: Securing and spreading change

Applying the ingredients of effective implementation.

Step 3: Giving the idea the best chance of success

Identify school priorities using internal data and professional judgement.

Step 1: Decide what do you want to achieve

42

Step 1: Decide what you want to achieve

• Capacity to analyse school level data – reading between the lines

• Benchmark performance against similar schools –establishing an authentic challenge

• Aligning priorities with the values and ethos of the school - making the moral case

Local systems need the support of intelligence led and data savvy partners

• There are 428 secondary schools (15% of our data set) in which the average GCSE point score of FSM pupils exceeds the national average for all pupils (276.7 points). In the graph these are schools above the horizontal blue line.

• These top performing schools come from across the spectrum of disadvantage (ranging from 1% FSM school intake to 61%).

• FSM pupils in schools with a low and high proportions of FSM students score higher than schools in between. This “smile effect” could be explained by:

1) FSM pupils in schools with low proportions of FSM students benefiting from peer effects

2) FSM pupils in schools with high proportions of FSM students benefitting from specialisation 44

The imperative: Key Stage 4 top performers

Note: this analysis excludes independent, special and selective schools

Step 2: Identify potential solutions

• Cast the net wide when trawling for solutions

• Focus on ‘disciplined innovation’ and evidence of promise

• Orchestrating the evidence to meet the problem

Local systems need to reach beyond the school to harness resources that improve learning and wider outcomes for children

Step 2: Identify potential solutions

Three rules of thumb

1. Use the evidence as a starting point for discussion

2. Dig deeper into what the evidence actually says

3. Understand the ‘active ingredients’ of implementation

Step 2: Identify potential solutions

• The capacity to secure implementation is a defining feature of effective leadership

• Identifying and isolating the ‘active ingredients’

• Establishing capacity to work through cycles of implementation

Local systems can identify and highlight excellent practice and provide cost effective professional development opportunities

Step 3: Give the solution the best chance of success

Applying evidence in practiceStep 4: Evaluate the impact

We’ve published a DIY Evaluation Guide with Durham University, which introduces the principles of evaluation

• Testing the evidence in context did the approach work here?

• Was it worth the effort and cost?

• What made it work, and how can it be improved next time?

Local systems can provide authentic benchmarks and promote peer challenge

Step 5: Making innovation stick

• Moving from what we know to what we do

• Evidence as the foundation for demanding reliable systems

• Establishing the process for ongoing change and innovation

Effective local systems demonstrate a culture of ambition and shared responsibility – the way we do things here…

We believe that more evidence can help…

…but what does it mean for you?

33 topics in

the Toolkit2,300

schools participating in projects

502,000 pupils involved in EEF projects

£220m

estimated spend over

lifetime of the EEF

72 projects

funded to date

52

Question Time

#OfstedSE

Market stall

Group A – presenting

Group B – browsing while eating

#OfstedSE

Market stall

Group B – presenting

Group A – browsing while eating

#OfstedSE

Sir Michael’s Challenge

‘Give me something incredibly positive to write about in 2018’

Questions for this afternoon

What is your strategy for raising achievement for disadvantaged pupils?

Is this proving successful? How do you know? Does everyone share the same view of this around the table?

Are you making the best use of resources in schools; are you using expertise like teaching schools and National Leads?

How successfully are converter academies and local authorities liaising and engaging with one another?

Questions for this afternoon

How do you measure success and how are collaboratives, schools and individual teachers held to account for improvements?

Are there any ideas that have been picked up today that would make you think differently about how you do things? Anything from the London Challenge?

How could HMI support your endeavours? Can you commit today to meeting again; to confirming the next steps?

#OfstedSE