Pupil Premium Review 2015-16

Pupil Premium Review 2015-16

A range of interventions were put in place throughout the academic year September 2015 to July 2016 to raise the achievement of disadvantaged students in the school. The main focus was to as far as possible ensure that disadvantaged students sitting public examinations achieved well. However, many of the interventions also supported the raising of achievement at KS3.

Pupil premium Funding was used to support students in three main ways:

1. Academically by providing tuition in various forms.

2. Through student welfare guidance and support programmes including: mentoring, counselling and motivational support. This was especially important for more vulnerable students and those in danger of becoming disaffected.

3. Through material support.

This review will feature separate sections for each of the key measures used to evaluate the progress and attainment made by our disadvantaged students.  It includes sections on

Progress 8

Progress in English and Maths

Progress in other English Baccalaureate Subjects

Progress in the open element of subjects


Progress 8

In 2016 the progress made by disadvantaged students was in line with the progress made by other students in school.  It was 0.1 of a grade lower that the national average of progress.  At the time of writing we do not yet have the average progress made by other students nationally.

Our 6 higher ability disadvantages students made exceptional progress compared to other higher ability students nationally.  In fact, their progress places them in the top 3% of performers nationally.

Our 23 middle ability disadvantaged students fared less well performing significantly worse than other middle ability students nationally.  Clearly this area will be a significant priority in out 2016-17 plans.


Progress in English and Maths

Once again, our disadvantaged higher ability students made outstanding progress in both English and Maths.  In English, their progress puts them in the top 1% of non-disadvantaged students nationally and in Maths, they are amongst the top 4% of non-disadvantaged students nationally.

Our disadvantaged low and middle did not perform as well; middle ability disadvantaged students made half a grade less progress than others nationally whilst the lowest ability students made three quarters less progress than others nationally.  As stated previously, these groups of students’ success are central to the ambitions of the school and an improvement in this area is key to our future success.


Progress in the other English Baccalaureate Subjects

The other English Baccalaureate subjects are the Foreign Language GCSEs, History, Geography, the Science GCSEs and Computing.  In considering our progress here, it is worth noting that, at St John’s, we run a three year Key Stage 4.  As a consequence, at the time that the new Progress 8 measures were announced, this Year 11 cohort had already chosen their options.  Given that they were already a year into their GCSE studies, we decided to move forward with their curricula, unaltered.  As a consequence, the progress in Ebacc subjects is low given that many of our low and middle ability disadvantaged students hadn’t chosen a full range of these subjects therefore limiting their grade contributions to the measure.

When taking into consideration the individual Ebacc subjects, we are pleased with the progress of disadvantaged students in History and Geography (in line with national others), have some work to do with higher ability disadvantaged students in languages (5 students with minus half a grade progress), but, most significantly, recognise that the middle ability disadvantaged students have not performed well in Science (20 students with -0.5 progress).


Progress in the ‘Open Element’ of Subjects

The open element of subjects are any recognised GCSE or equivalent qualifications that that do not fall into the English, Maths or Ebacc categories.  In this category, our middle ability disadvantaged students made equivalent progress to other students nationally whilst our low ability disadvantaged students outperformed others nationally by a third of a grade.  Our most able disadvantaged students made half a grade more progress than others nationally.