Agenda item

1.    The Chairman welcomed the Select Committee Members and the two guests; Linda Pickles and Celia Buxton to the Select Committee meeting and she invited all those present to introduce themselves. 

2.    Linda Pickles and Celia Buxton gave Members a presentation which is appended to these minutes. 

3.    Celia Buxton explained that Pupil Premium was additional funding given to publicly funded schools to raise attainment for disadvantaged pupils and to diminish differences.  It was introduced in 2011.  Pupils eligible for Pupil Premium included Children in Care, Pupils eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) or who have been eligible within the last 6 years (Ever 6). 

4.    For a child in reception to Year 6 the school receives £1320 for each child, from year 7 to year 11 this reduced to £935. 

5.    Mr Booth asked why the money reduced in secondary school.  The level of funding and allocation was determined by central government and it was suggested that higher funding for younger pupils could be the front loading of support available, before it was too late to diminish the differences between disadvantaged children and their peers.  It was also suggested that secondary schools were larger and more financially secure than many primary schools. 

6.    The Chairman commented that children could be in low income families who were not eligible for Pupil Premium but could still be vulnerable and in need of additional support – the guests agreed with this comment. 

7.    Celia Buxton explained that the Pupil Premium funding was designed to ensure that all children had the same access to learning against the identified groups.  It was confirmed that Pupil Premium funding was not for supporting children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) or with English as an Additional Language (EAL) although these pupils may be eligible for Pupil Premium funding.

8.    Mr Whiting commented that there was a potential disconnect in identifying vulnerable children and targeting the correct children.  This was a national problem and could he be assured that Kent were dealing with this potential problem?  Linda Pickles explained that eligible pupils were identified against FSM eligibility.  It was correct that there were a different number of pupils who were FSM eligible against the measures for the numbers of pupils against the FSM Ever 6 criteria.  This had also been affected by the universal free school meals offer for all KS1 children and had meant that families could be going under the radar if they didn’t want to claim. 

9.    It was confirmed that schools were required to publish how their Pupil Premium funding was being spent and there was a pool of knowledge to allow schools to share best practice.

10. Linda Pickles explained the KS2 data for Kent.  East Kent schools had the highest number of FSM ever pupils with schools in Thanet having the highest (599).  West Kent schools had the lowest number of FSM ever pupils with schools in Tunbridge Wells having the lowest (206).   Mr Booth commented upon the huge variances across Kent and asked why Kent was improving faster than other counties.  Linda Pickles explained that one reason was that there had been a number of schools with a judgement of ‘Requires Improvement’ in Kent who had moved to good which was a reflection of the strong leadership in raising standards.  Mrs Dean commented that, nonetheless, there were 6 boroughs where gaps were widening.  It was explained that this was in part because the attainment of non-disadvantaged pupils was also rising.

11. Mrs Dean asked Linda Pickles and Celia Buxton to provide the table setting out “KS2 – FSM ever Gaps by Area” broken down into Districts/Boroughs.  Regarding KS4 and secondary schools, the gaps were significantly wider than the national average and only a small number of vulnerable pupils (311) accessed selective schools. 

12. Linda Pickles discussed with the Committee the 12 areas of focus noted by Sir John Dunford, the National Pupil Premium Champion.  Members also noted the Education Endowment Foundation/Sutton Trust Teaching and Learning Toolkit which provided a list of effective strategies to raise attainment and set out the cost and potential gain.  Members queried some of the areas of the toolkit, particularly the Feedback element which came at ‘low cost’.  Schools had been most effective where there was a whole school approach and focus, participative decision making, shared expectations and recognition of pupils’ individual needs. 

13. Members were referred to page 10 of the presentation which set out 5 themes in common to the 7 schools in Kent at which best practice had been identified with disadvantaged pupils outperforming non-disadvantaged nationally and with attainment above national in all areas.  These 5 themes were:

a.    Setting the vision

b.    Investment in Early Years

c.    Relentless focus on Quality First Teaching

d.    Designing a curriculum that meets the needs of the learners

e.    Communication and Literacy

14. It was confirmed that schools could use the funding to support the needs of their disadvantaged pupils against the barriers and challenges they had identified.  Schools needed to be able to demonstrate the impact of the funding on the outcomes for their pupils/students. 

15. The Chairman spoke about Cliftonville School in Thanet which had been rated as outstanding, the school had improved its engagement with parents and was also holding workshops with parents, this was one of the strengths of improving schools. 

16. In response to whether the take-up of the Kent Pupil Premium toolkit was low, with 126 primary schools using this, Linda Pickles explained that this provided guidance for school leaders and governors. The Kent Primary and Secondary toolkits would be shared with members of the Committee.

17. Referring to the word ‘feedback’ on the toolkit coming at low costs there were concerns that this was a high cost in terms of teacher time.  Linda Pickles explained that feedback should have an impact but it was up to schools to determine how they provided this, it could take a range of forms and did not have to be solely restricted to written feedback. 

18. Members commented that parental involvement should be encouraged with a view to increasing aspiration within families.  There were problems with generational poverty and a lack of aspiration.  Whilst teachers should be aware of Pupil Premium children they should not be labelled and should not encourage differences. 

19. Q – Page 14 of the agenda pack, ‘social mobility’

A – This referred to people moving in and out of the area such as Gypsy families and Looked After Children. 

20. A member asked what the experts would like to see come out of the Select Committee?  Linda Pickles explained that head teachers reported that the level of need of children entering schools was increasing; the reasons behind this were unclear.  Schools were strengthening links with early years settings and key elements of good practice were being shared as well as a multi-agency approach to supporting parents. 

21. There needed to be more support for the primary to secondary transition for Pupil Premium pupils to ensure they developed and were able to find employment or further education when they left school.  KS1 data was most indicative of KS4.  A school’s success depended on the quality of the teaching and the ability of Kent schools to recruit and retain quality staff.  What could KCC do to help recruit and maintain staff?

22. Q – Were the best practice/more successful schools larger?  

A – Referring to secondary schools larger academies could often offer better pay schemes and bonuses to help with the recruitment and retention of staff.  Many primary schools found it challenging to recruit and retain quality staff.  Those schools with a continuing professional development programme in place often attracted better candidates for recruitment, this was an issue that could be raised with the head teachers of schools on visits. 

23.Q - Referring to supporting young people on their transition from primary to secondary school were schools using their Pupil Premium money to help retain teachers?

A – Celia Buxton explained that there was a requirement to show how the funding was impacting upon pupil premium children and how the resource was actually being used.  It was thought that some secondary schools were using the funding for year 6 transition to prevent future exclusion of young people.  This was also an interesting question to ask schools. 

24. Linda Pickles and Celia Buxton committed to provide the table setting out “KS2 – FSM ever Gaps by Area” broken down into Districts/Boroughs to Select Committee Members. 

25.The Chairman thanked Celia Buxton and Linda Pickles for attending the session, for their excellent presentation and for answering Members’ questions.