Agenda item

1.            The Chairman welcomed the Select Committee members and two guest speakers and invited all those present to introduce themselves.

 

2.            Mr Mellors spoke to a two page handout entitled-The Essex Toolkit, an approach to maximising the use of the pupil premium funding, which is appended to these minutes.

 

3.            He also referred to a glossy pamphlet entitled Tackling Educational disadvantage: A Toolkit for Essex Schools.

 

4.            Mr Mellors was invited to expand on his personal biography and informed members that he would be leaving the Local Authority to work for HMI at the end of term.  In his current role he has responsibility for disadvantaged pupils.

 

5.            After consultation with Head Teachers it became clear a Toolkit to aid maximisation of pupil premium was required. The Tender process resulted in the National Education Trust being commissioned to develop the Toolkit in consultation with Essex County Council. Authors: Marc Rowland, Jo Moore and Dr Tony Ashmore.

 

6.            How Head Teacher’s used the Toolkit was not prescriptive, it was intended to promote challenge and enhance good practice. No one strategy worked for all children, each school needed to take account of its own culture, leadership etc.to maximise intervention.

 

7.            Mr Mellors emphasised leadership was key. Pressure on budgets meant spending to achieve excellent practitioners was essential and children on pupil premium benefitted most from being taught by highest quality teaching.

 

8.            Leadership was key! Often disadvantaged do not have a backup plan and Leaders needed to be relentless in pursuit of ambition and highest outcomes for those in most need-Establishing a culture of possibilities, not barriers with a collective sense of mission, pervading through the whole school and reflected in all staff.

 

9.            An example of best practice could be seen in a Clacton school, situated in a very deprived area where the Headteacher had recognised the best advocates were carers/parents and had engaged them in improving better outcomes and higher self-esteem.

 

10.         Understanding barriers and targeting activities  included recognising the importance of early language acquisition; being accessible to all parents; any interventions being blended with highest quality teaching; recognition of characteristics of learners who underachieve and target activities through a well thought out curriculum; engaging the voice of pupils and others.

 

11.         Monitoring, evaluation and accountability needed to be long term and sustainable with acceptance that important lessons can be learnt when things don’t work. Effective monitoring should be used to find out what worked and what didn’t work, then changes made in practice.  This helps to focus the responsibility for pupil premium is everybody’s.

12.         Essex Toolkit was rolled out to schools, initially with two free conferences, for Head Teachers and Governors. The first invited speakers from the Educational Endowment Fund and included group seminars provided by Teaching School Alliances who were commissioned to investigate effective engagement with careers and parents.

 

13.         The second focused on developing metacognitive approaches to learning, which resulted in a number of schools signing up for the action research Project - ReflectED.

 

14.         Mr Mellors concluded by saying achievement for disadvantaged pupils was a key priority for the Local Authority and everybody should champion the needs of pupil premium in a school led improvement strategy.

 

15.         Q.  Was the Essex Toolkit based on the Sutton Toolkit?

 

16.          A. It was different-Mr Mellors felt that the Essex Toolkit was quite wordy for Head Teachers but contained some important questions for school leaders and not the Sutton Trust information. This information is useful in deciding which strategies have high impact and for least cost.

 

17.         Q. What was the take up in schools?

 

18.         The aim was for every school targeted on data through colleagues, groups of schools and partnerships to use it.

 

19.         Q. Cost?

 

20.         A. Free. It is very accessible, user friendly and at No cost to the user.

 

21.         Q.  Academy/Free  school accessible?

 

22.         A. Essex includes all schools, the Toolkit champions’ children and families of all Essex pupils, trying to overlap issues with SEND in schools and identify any benefit to both areas.

 

23.         Q. How many use it?

 

24.         A. All schools are aware, some use specific sections to maximise best use of pupil premium funding.

 

25.         Q. Some London Boroughs were successful in closing the gap between Primary and Secondary education, but Shire counties had less funding?

 

26.         A. London Boroughs were previously funded at a higher level, and appeared to have an interesting use of Pupil Premium. The population make up in London is different to those in Shire counties.  A Secondary school in Harlow had recognised a lack of parental support and the school had therefore identified the need for 24 hour support in every aspect of secondary age pupils, thus closing the gap.

 

27.         Q. How could engagement at home be encouraged?

 

28.         A. Some schools provide homework clubs and a suitable place to study outside hours to assist chaotic home life-staff may require payment, but others support the initiative for the good of the pupils and school as a whole. Leadership is Key.

 

29.         Q What was the priority spend for Pupil Premium funds-quality staff tended to be more expensive, small, rural schools had particular challenges, less access than cluster of schools?

 

30.         A. Key was well trained staff, initial partnerships could be school lead, then schools needed to support themselves, partnership models enhanced shared skills etc.

 

31.         Q. Looked After Children (LAC)

 

32.         A. Essex have virtual Head Teachers who have ownership of the pupil premium and work with individual schools.  These children fall under the responsibility of the Authority and must be tracked closely.

 

33.         Q. Is this not just another “hoop” to jump through for Head Teachers?

 

34.         A. Essex think there is a benefit to one person having the rigor to protect the child’s best interests and schools must be proactive in accessing the funds.

 

35.         Q. How is the long term benefit of Pupil Premium children communicated to primary Head Teachers?  How can the cycle be broken so that the same children do not go on to have their own children who return as Pupil premium?  Need to break the cycle.

 

36.         A. The only information available post-secondary age are the statistics for NEET. There is a definite need for better tracking between phases, currently primary and secondary are separate, but expectations are for the “whole” child. A vision is needed for how these children end up in society, in order to break the cycle of poor generational learnt behaviours.

 

37.         Q. How can one class teacher with a number of disadvantaged pupils find time?

 

38.         A. Teacher training can be too narrow a focus-class teachers can remove barriers to learning e.g. before/after school clubs and funds can be diverted to assist. Strong Leadership and support is Key.

 

39.         Q. marking is expensive-takes teacher time?

40.         A. Feedback is key, best practice is for teachers to mark Pupil Premium children’s books first when fresher, the pupils needing feedback most are the less able -an example of how systems used can be more productive at no extra cost.

 

41.         Q. How/Do you develop bespoke strategies for each school, is there support from the Council?

 

42.         A. EEF give strategies, pamphlets such as “what works in Key stage1”, partnerships share expertise and build case studies. Partnerships sign post good practise.  Peer to peer support is encouraged.

 

43.         Q. Do you target Toolkit use based on data?

 

44.         A. The Authority tracks school data and RAG rates it, so they know who is performing well.  Over time look at progress and discuss in a none threatening way with Head Teachers and Governors. Encourage close tracking of PP Funds, use of smart processes and systems to assist peer review of own disadvantage work to employ good practice and seek improved outcomes.

 

45.         Q. Copyright of Essex CC glossy pamphlet?

 

46.         A. Please contact us.

 

47.         The Chair thanked the speakers for their excellent and informative contribution to the Committee meeting and praised the high quality content of the presentation.