Agenda item

 

1)            Mr Roberts introduced himself and advised that The Malling School was situated in an area of high social deprivation; currently the PP was above the national average, sitting around 30%.  He explained that The Malling School was a non-selective mainstream school and that often disadvantaged pupils in such schools do not match the attainment of their non PP mainstream peers nationally but do make significant progress from their starting points.  He advised that the attainment gap may not have closed, so the performance of the school may not be considered effective if not for consideration of the progress made and the wider impact of the intervention provided.  This would be evidenced through pupil level PP tracking, Progress 8 performance and case studies rather than just attainment measures.

 

2)            QUESTION

Where is the school situated?

 

ANSWER

East Malling – 9 miles from Maidstone in a small rural community.

 

3)            QUESTION

30% PP ?

 

ANSWER

Yes and many more pupils are technically eligible but do not take it up – it could be as high as 40/50%

 

4)            QUESTION

Are these families chased?

 

ANSWER

There is a stigma attached – it is harder in secondary school to convince parents than in primary schools.  If you look at data (EVER 6)– around 50% PP are ever 6 children  - it is necessary to reclaim when moving from primary to secondary school.

 

5)            QUESTION

Do you think free school meals is the right criteria?

 

ANSWER

I know there are many that do not claim – children are missing out.

 

6)            QUESTION

Do you take all the PP funding as a pool or allocate it to individual children?

 

ANSWER

As a pool - a budget is written which states how the money is to be spent.  A PP review takes place at the end of each academic year.  The data is then analysed and then the most effective strategies are worked out– how these children make this progress with these particular interventions.  We look at individual students and shape interventions around the cohort.

7)            QUESTION

How do you consider progress is measured against academic attainment?

 

ANSWER

You can’t just use academic attainment, year 11 academic attainment is better for non PP pupils than PP pupils but PP pupils did better on progress from KS2.   Unfortunately, DFE view is that you don’t get a job based purely on progress and therefore the gap needs to narrow. PP Pupils enter secondary school behind those non PP, so incredibly frustrating being judged on attainment levels only.

 

8)            QUESTION

In your view /experience what are the most effective headings?

 

ANSWER

Firstly, high quality teaching and small class sizes, some PP funding goes towards reducing class sizes particularly in English and Maths.

 

Secondly, pastoral care, it is necessary to somehow influence what goes on outside school too, attendance etc./wraparound care, homework clubs etc.  It has to work for every child not just PP pupils; the funding has to be used efficiently.

 

9)            QUESTION

Is the funding enough?

 

ANSWER

Never!  We spend double what is received.

 

10)         QUESTION

You have a Grammar stream – how many disadvantaged pupils go into that?

 

ANSWER

For those pupils that access the Grammar stream, this is based upon prior attainment and there are three criteria:-

SATs, Cognitive ability testing and those pupils that were close to passing the  Kent Test. In this County it is proven that those children from a middle class background are more likely to perform better in the Kent Test.  However, there is also ongoing   internal testing that takes place once at The Malling School and where potential is seen then children would be moved into the Grammar stream.

 

11)         QUESTION

I see that from your web site you manged to reduce gap to zero in 2012/2013 – why?

 

ANSWER

It is a reflection of the cohort rather than anything else, sometimes a handful of children in a cohort could make a difference, really it is pure chance and cohort dependent. 

12)         QUESTION

Your intake comes from a variety of local primary schools, has you heard/seen statistics from primary schools and is it your view that PP is working in primary schools?

 

ANSWER

There is really good work taking place in primary schools and PP funding is used to good effect but there continues to be a gap between primary and secondary - PP is not as effective as could be in closing the gap.

 

13)         QUESTION

You agree?

 

ANSWER

If you are going to make a difference need to do it early on  - ie 0 -2 years , social care in pre-school and nurseries – very early years.

 

14)         QUESTION

Your school is in an area of high deprivation, does PP have an impact? And how do you track this?

 

ANSWER

Yes there is a limited impact in secondary school phase, it is difficult to close the gap and funding needs to be earlier.  With regard to tracking, each intervention is analysed on progress.   Mr Roberts agreed to send the Committee a copy of his tracking document – looking at costings – low cost/high impact.

 

15)         QUESTION

Do you use a tool kit?

 

ANSWER

Yes where appropriate in particular circumstances.

 

16)         QUESTION

Can you tell us about the Tydeman Centre and the post 16 curriculum?  And expand   on the difficulty of the situation with a lack of aspiration among parents but the school only being only ¾ mile from the very affluent Kings Hill?

 

ANSWER

Yes the PP for current year 7 is actually only 9% but over all year groups it is 35-40% but now there has been a success in attracting families from the Kings Hill area.

 

The Tydeman Centre is a speech and language unit, all pupils have an EHCP and arrive with low   prior attainment but leave above average. There is a very good pupil to teacher ratio with classes of 9 pupils with up to 3 adults in the classroom.  The best way to improve is to decrease class sizes and then excellent progress is made.  It is interesting to note that there are not many PP children.

 

With regard to post 16 progress Mr Roberts explained that three years ago the school made a decision to move away from A levels and to introduce the International Baccalaureate programme.  The IB has a philosophy of developing key skills and attributes and cultivating successful, confident and well-rounded young people.  All children in 2017 either gained their first choice university place a good job or a high level apprenticeship.  It had been noted   previously that children lacked aspiration and confidence, they were never going to achieve.

 

17)         QUESTION

Can you tell us about SEN and PP?

 

ANSWER

Most schools would pick up regardless of PP or not.  Often there are hidden SEN issues, children with behavioural issues regarded as naughty etc. when there are underlying SEN issues.  Middle class children much more likely to be identified.  Most likely to be identified at primary school but can still be picked up at secondary level.

 

18)         QUESTION

There is low PP at The Tydeman Centre.  There is an average 13% PP at all schools and Special schools only 3% PP.  Have these children slipped through the net? Do you think they are placed in the wrong setting?  ie if in mainstream schooling  are they not so likely to be identified?

 

ANSWER

Yes this could be the case, many of our disadvantaged children don’t get identified or parents are unable to navigate the system.

 

19)         QUESTION

Children identified as PP could be missing out?

 

ANSWER

At the Tydeman Centre there is a funding of around £13,000 per pupil whereas pupils in receipt of PP funding get around £4,500 plus £900 PP funding.

 

20)         QUESTION

The deprived/disadvantaged can’t fight the system?

 

ANSWER

Yes some families from disadvantaged backgrounds are struggling to put food on the table and simply don’t have the time to fight for support and don’t have finances to obtain private assessments and reports.

 

 

 

21)         QUESTION

If you had a pupil in this situation would you use PP funding to carry out assessments?

 

ANSWER

No, it takes time but wouldn’t need funding to obtain a statutory assessment.

 

22)         QUESTION

The gap between PP within a Grammar/High school is far wider?

 

ANSWER

You can increase funding but it is always going to be harder for parents from disadvantaged backgrounds.

 

23)         QUESTION

How does the IB impact? And what is the correlation?

 

ANSWER

Looking at judging the PP, it is important not to just look at the academic qualification. Everyone was successful in either gaining their first choice university place, had a positive education, training and employment.   Also a comparison needs to be made between those children at 16 years of age to 18years.   Mr Roberts advised the Committee of a recent trip to Italy he had taken IB students on.  It was the first time many had been abroad, they were lacking in confidence.  During the trip they were leading groups around Milan, using the tube and purchasing tickets with confidence. He explained that the skills and confidence gained was very difficult to measure, it had nothing to do with exam results.   The IB learner profile is 10 skills every lesson.

 

24)         QUESTION

We have established that less affluent parents are likely to have their children labelled as naughty whilst middle class parents push to obtain support.  Can KCC do anything to remedy this?

 

ANSWER

This is a generalisation, however in my experience middle class families are likely to have children diagnosed with autism and dyslexia or social, emotional and mental health whilst children from a disadvantaged backgrounds are likely to go undiagnosed and be labelled as “naughty” children who “haven’t been bought up properly”. Therefore schools sometimes manager the behaviour without asking what is the underlying reason for this behaviour.

 

KCC SEN Department are very good.  However, parents need   information and support where needs are identified, help required in understanding their rights and what avenues are open to them.  Possibly in Children’s Centres? 

 

 

25)         QUESTION

If extra funding were available for EHCP would this make a difference?

 

 

ANSWER

Need to be careful not to give too many statutory assessments but I see children that are disadvantaged arriving at secondary school having not received the support they should be entitled to at primary school.

 

An additional email was sent to the committee on the 27^th November with the requested document detailing analysis of PP spend at The Malling School and a message as follows:

 

A justification often offered for the grammar school system is that such a system enables children from disadvantaged backgrounds to have access to an academic education. Indeed this has recently been given as justification by the Conservative government for changing legislation to enable the opening of more grammar schools. Our experience in Kent is that fewer children entitled to the Pupil Premium attend grammar schools than non-selective schools.  

 

If we believe that the selective system can promote equality then we must find ways of getting more disadvantaged children into grammar schools. One way of doing this would be to allow primary schools to spend Pupil Premium money on employing tutors to coach pupils to pass the Kent Test, thus giving them the same advantages that better off families currently enjoy. This is currently not allowed by KCC and guidance to head teachers is clear that they must not coach pupils for the Kent Test.

 

You may think employing tutors would be a waste of money as the Kent Test is supposed to be tutor proof. If this is genuinely the case then I would ask what is being done about the thousands of private tutors across Kent who are claiming to be able to help children pass the Kent Test? Either the test is not tutor proof or the tutors are operating fraudulent businesses!